I was disappointed at first to hear he was thinking about it. What does he have that is better than Kucinich? Totally nothing, he is as appealing a candidate as Ed Rosenthal. Yeah a great guy, NOT a president. Why run?

I guess we will find out. I would be happier to be hearing he is endorsing Obama and was going to be heading up a product/food safety watch dog group, an issue we moms REALLY care about. And in exchange Obama is against all nuclear and other deadly pollution. We can hope, maybe it is theatrics to build the team.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Obama wins the primary,
I'm voting for Nader

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need some kind of concerted action against a Nader candidacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader is a spoiler. He would not make a good President. The only thing he can do is spoil the vote for Obama or Clinton. He caqn do no good for America. As an activist, he is a poor example of a human being. Just what we need... A man with rotten teeth to represent America to the world. A vote for Nader is support for the Republican war machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I supported Edwards-now that he's out, I'm supporting Obama. I don't care much for Hillary. But if she should win the nomination, I will vote for her !!! The Democrats have been in a circular firing squad for years.
Just think what we could accomplish if we worked together and presented a united front.

This time, the Repubs are fractured and in disarray over McCain. This is our best chance we have to pull together, stop our bickering and put a Dem ( any Dem ) in the White House. We can start to undo the horrendous damage of the last 7 years, make us proud to be Americans again and show the world we've regained our senses.

If you simply cannot support the Democratic nominee ( whoever it may be ), please don't vote for Nader. Just vote the other races on the ticket and leave the presidential one blank. That's as eloquent a protest as voting for Nader ( or McCain ) and does no damage.

Third ( and fourth! ) parties may indeed be a viable option soon and I would welcome them. But go through the primary process like everyone else. Don't just decide to jump in at the last minute. Work your way up-get elected to the House or Senate first and "do your homework".

The fact that Nader's considering a run now reveals his desire to be a spoiler and just "stir the pot". If had been serious about it, he would have started when everybody else did. And ditto for Bloomberg.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I swear if he F$$KS this up again...I will stop there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He loves getting his name in the paper and having some control, power, he is no different from any other very ordinary politician in that way. He has gotten to full of himself and needs a party every four years to remind himself how wonderful he is, spoiler is right, pathetic too.

Nadar is a one issue candidate, he is old old news. He has little if anything to offer on the war, our national defense, international relations, or our economy. He is lame and STUPID if he does this, few will appreciate it, most will laugh or ignore him, quite a few will certainly shame him as the spoiler he is.

He WILL get his face on the news though!

WTF!!! If you can't lend a hand get the hell out of our way!!!

STOP MESSING WITH OUR DEMOCRACY TO FUCKING SUIT YOURSELVES!

But you know, WHATEVER! BARACK WILL BEAT MCPAIN WITHOUT YOU! BRING NADAR ON! HE IS BLOODY DEPRESSING AND BORING, NO ONE WILL CARE AND FEWER WILL GIVE HIM THEIR VOTE!

YES WE WILL, YES WE WILL, YES WE WILL SAY NO TO 100 MORE YEARS!

VOTE OBAMA '08 FOR CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think it will happen this time.

Gore was not charismatic, did not generate the excitement that Obama does. So you'll have less voters seeking a third party alternative like Nader.

Plus many voters already believe that Nader is a spoiler. For Nader to even consider a third party run now reaffirms that belief. More likely Nader will suffer a backlash from people as a result.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus, Ralph. Are you happy that your crap, no possible way to win candicy put the son of a b--- IN the white house? The votes you garnered in Florida determined his victory. GOD, please stick your advocacy from outside. Remember this: only about 2% of republicans agree with any of your positions. On the other hand Democrats support you to a high degree. EXCEPT WHEN YOU SABOTAGE THE ELECTION. You would drain votes from US. Democrats! Rise to the call of sacrifice. STAY OUT OF THE RACE!! PLEASE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They should adopt some of his policy positions like single payer health care, reducing the military budget, etc.

Illegal attempts to keep him off ballots, and slander of an activist who has devoted nearly 40 years of his life to progressive politics don't help their cause.

What Dems seem to forget is that there are many progressives who aren't Democrats and never have been. If they want their votes they need to start adopting a more progressive platform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"So I think there’s never enough forces of justice, Amy. There’s never enough forces of justice to combat the concentration of power in the hands of the few used against the many in our country, representing giant corporations who basically have turned Washington into corporate-occupied territory."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressives who vote for Nader are not thinking clearly and are throwing away their votes.
I'm sorry for those who didn't seen the handwriting on the wall in 2000, but now it's 8 years later!
Nader's a spoiler. I have no idea what he imagines he will do for the country.
But we don't have to go along. I understand that not everyone reading and writing here is a Democrat. But so what? It's hard to believe that many are McCain/Rove/Bush/Cheney etc etc Republicans. We need our Constitution back!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just voted for Obama (early) in the Ohio primary. If he gets the nomination, I will most likely support him in the general election as well. However, if Hillary gets nominated, I will be voting for Nader or writing in Ron Paul or supporting whoever else. We don't need another unrepentant Democratic hawk who is committed to corporate interests being the party's standard-bearer pushing it further to the right.

Having Hillary as the nominee would just be a bad strategical move for the Democrats. She has alienated the left and the right hates her. Howard Dean was correct in '04 when he said that the Dems are not going to beat the GOP by running a candidate that is too similar to George Bush. I think the same can be said for this race too. Hillary was beholden to the Bush agenda when it served her short term needs. She'd like to erase her history of voting along with the GOP, but what's done is done and she'll have to deal with the fact that there are voters who won't overlook her opportunism.

Having Nader in the race is ultimately good for the progressive community because he provides incentive for whoever the nominee is to not forget about the left. If he, or someone else, does not serve as left-wing competition, the Dem nominee will be tempted to drift to the right in the general election to gain votes from McCain.

This is supposed to be a multiparty democracy, so the more candidates the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I swore, when the Democrats failed the country so disastrously in 2002 and 2004, that I would vote only for progressives, effectively for no Democrat other than Kucinich, so if Nader runs on a platform of troop withdrawal and genuine single-payer universal health insurance like Kucinich proposed, he'll have my vote. George Bush's rogue-nation presidency is not Nader's fault, it's the fault of people who wanted a progressive candidate but voted Democrat instead last time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I do NOT want McCain as the POTUS nor do I have any love for Nader, I do want to point out a fallacy that is driven by emotional thinking.

In a McCain v. Obama race with Nader as a minor 3rd party candidate, a vote for Nader is NOT a vote for McCain. All it is is a vote that went to neither of the two primary candidates and it is arithmetically equivalent to a blank vote or staying home. A few people have said "don't vote Nader, just leave it blank if you must" but there is no difference between those two choices because leaving it blank or voting for Nader does not change the tallies for McCain and Obama. The only thing that changes their tallies is voting directly for one of them.

Why should someone vote for Nader rather than leaving it blank since there is no arithmetic difference on the final tally? Well, it does officially send a measurable signal that they are saying "none of the above."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party isn't she? http://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...but NOT one bit of evidence so far that his STANCE on ISSUES is the worst or NOT the most progressive. Sounds like mostly like Faux News. here.

If you do NOT want my vote to go third party, you will have to deal with facts...or don't Democraps do that anymore? You sound like the Repukes of this day and age.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader is running. If Dems are interested in why people support Ralph, they can take a quick look at his issues list.

If Dems want to attract those of us who hold think these are important issues, they need to start talking about these in a substantial way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...I do not want to leave it.

While I am not quite at the point of this quote: ‘I had a place to go when the Democratic Party left me,’ I am looking for this alternative for the first time in my life.

This was among the choicer words spoken in Fort Worth Feb. 10 by former Democratic Congresswoman and current Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney.

McKinney noted that, as a Congresswoman, some of the legislation she proposed, along with what she saw as a insubstantial yet substantial issue, a rejected attempt by party consultants to style her up, led her both to be marginalized within the Democratic caucus and to realize she had common issues with Greens.

Among that legislation she proposed was an attempt to ban depleted uranium from use in tank and artillery shells, banning tax breaks for companies moving businesses/factories overseas, and voting reform legislation that would have included instant runoff voting. Not surprisingly, all but three of the above three items were passed by Congress, the last in part because, of course, it threatens the two-party monopoly.

Top issues she mentioned included ending the war in Iraq, ending privatizing of prisons (Amen to that), learning from the success of “people power” in Latin America, and more attention to 9/11 “truthers” (a pet subject of hers, and NO amen to that on my part, especially as it was the second conspiracy theory item I heard at the event).

Other choice quotes:

Referring to the financial side of the two-party monopoly, she said, “We are all the same people. We get our money from the same people.”

On the work involved with doing the right thing, she said. “It’s easy for Nancy Pelosi, to ascend to the highest place (a woman has reached) .. and then say, ‘Impeachment is off the table.’”

Ironically, Teddy Roosevelt started the Progressive party after losing the first time. People are looking for an alternative to the dittohead parties we have today, and so am I. The time may have come. I am not Green yet, but a third party is a definite option this year unless my disappointing, pathetic actually, party shapes up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ralph Nader is a has been, that will be lucky to get a few thousand votes nation wide. I say
ignore the guy. He is a loser who ruined his
once great legacy by giving us George Bush.
I wouldn't give 5 minutes of worry over a Nader
candidacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 2000, after the Nader candidacy indirectly led to Fuhrer Bush's "election" by taking much needed votes from Gore in Florida, Nader, speaking to a group of supporters, actually relished in his political significance. He was actually proud he had helped elect Bush. America be damned, I guess!
Well, now Nader seems to again want to split the proverbial baby.
I really don't care how much I agree or don't agree with Nader, with Kucinich, with Paul, etc. Third party candidacies could likely get McCain elected this time around. Even Hillary, let alone Obama, would be FAR better a president than McCain (who has been moving to the far Right lately).
I may have voted for Nader in 2000, but I certainly won't make THAT mistake again!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's a reason why the congress has the worst approval rating in years. There's a reason why the president has the worst approval rating in years. It's because both Republicans AND Democrats are whores to corporations and they don't give a rats ass about the people.
Someone needs to come in and fuck things up, and Obama will not be that man my friends. He's not for empowering the people like Nader is. Go Nader! He has my support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In his unwavering progressivism, Nader embodies the values of this website more than Clinton or Obama. Beyond that, Nader has accomplished more in this country than Clinton, Obama and McCain put together, without question. The man is a living legend, in my eyes.

Why are liberals attacking this man for challenging the two party system as it is currently constituted? I know a significant number of people on this website agree with Nader's criticisms of that system, that the parties are corporate-infused, that the Democrats are spineless and don't honor liberal values.

This article and the articles like it that will surely follow are all motivated by a realpolitik outlook that I find revolting when it comes from liberals. If you believe in Obama or Clinton, vote for them. If you see it as a "lesser of two evils" situation then vote for Nader or another independent. It's as simple as that. If Nader takes votes from Obama or Clinton, maybe the Democrats need to more carefully consider the ideas of the liberal wing of their party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Haaahaaaa! Nader is running.. How dare he!!? What, you think this is a democracy??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear hysterical Democrats,

Why are you so arrogant as to assume that all americans left of center are on your side?

Why do you think that just because y'all have a candidate or two who makes nice speeches about change and is not a War Pig Republican that all of a sudden everyone on the left owes your candidate allegience?

Why do you continue to live under this collective fantasy that most of us who voted for Nader would have voted for your little corporate whore puppet candidates even if you held guns to our heads?

y'all scream and moan about Nader and his supporters as if we actually have something in common with y'all.

NewsFlash: We don't. Y'all are collaborationist supporters of an Imperial War Party that is part and parcel of the corporate oligarchy that is ruining this country and indeed, the entire planet. And since y'all are a bunch of do-nothings during non-elections years you can...

take your whining and piss off. Y'all have no right to lecture us on how to vote and who gets to run for president.

Most of y'all were sitting on the couch doing NOTHING while Bill Clinton and the big money Dems implemented a Republican economic and foreign policy agenda in the 1990's.

If you ask me your vitriolic hatred for Mr. Nader and his supporters has more to do over all y'alls guilt at being election year activists (and that in name and internet blather only) and doing nothing while the Dems fiddled during the sack of America and the planet by Corporate War-Mongering Huns.

Sorry, but for those of us who were trying to make change (and not just with nice speeches, either) during the Corporate reign of terror of the 90's, we get to vote for who we want to. We don't need a bunch of spineless liberals (who stood by and let the Dems promote NAFTA, the WTO, the Salvage Rider, the decade long intermittent bombing of Iraq, the savage exploitation of Appalachia and poor people everywhere, and countess other crimes against humanity and the planet) tell us who to vote for or make us feel guilty for not falling in line with the great liberal hallucination of change through Corporate controlled Politics.

Stop acting like we are some wayward leftists who need to sheparded or guilt tripped back into the fold. Your folds sucks and gets nothing done and I won't play along no matter how much you whine, complain, cajole or even make threats.

The radicals owe you nothing. We will pay you nothing (in votes or support or whatever) and we will vote our consciences when and where we please.

All this whining and hand-ringing is pathetic anyway. If y'all really support the Dems, shut the fuck up and get out from in front of your computer and go register people to vote and take whatever measures you feel are necessary to prevent the massive voter fraud that happened in 2000 and 2004 from happening again. That fraud accounted for more of a vote count difference between Corporate Whore Number One and his "opposition" than all the far left votes put together.

have a nice day and please stop whining - it is unbecoming of Citizens of free will and it makes all y'all look like a buch of complaining whining spineless do nothing conservative talk radio listeners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't it oddly ironic that the moment it looks like Barack Obama my be the winner suddenly the Nader-bot is
activated.

These globalist elite really know how to manipulate the herd you really gotta give them credit for that!

Would Naderbot be activated if it was a safe Bilary versus Insane (i mean McCain)? No I doubt that seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some say it's incorrect to blame Nader for Bush's victory in 2000. I think they're right. The people who are responsible are the Nader voters, not Nader.

I also voted for Nader in 2000. I did it in a state that was solidly for Gore. I rationalized that I deserve a pass because my vote was a noble vote, a protest vote, and because the state was safely in Gore's column there was no risk in it.

But I've come to realize I deserve no pass on it. I'm just as culpable as the 90-some-thousand Nader voters in Florida, and every Nader voter nationwide, because all that did was put Nader on a hyper-inflated ego trip since, motivating his run in 2004 and now 2008.

So here we sit, with a warmongering, double-talking torture-victim-cum-authorizer now the nominee of the Republicans. As a ninety-plus percent supporter of Bush policies, he will guarantee uninterrupted continuity to every reckless policy these criminals have implemented. He's a guy who glibly sang "bomb Iran" to the tune of some gleeful Beach Boys song, who is unabashedly for a hundred year occupation and more war, and this ill-tempered septuagenarian may well end up with the nuclear codes in his possession despite our most concerted efforts.

Thanks to a compliant media who have reconstructed the Humpty Dumpty that was his reputation, independents love him again -- and those are the very votes needed to defeat him.

So, in the face of this threat, Nader runs yet again, and for sure, some independent progressives, pure of heart, slow of wit, and belligerently self-righteous, will waste their votes on him, lecture us all on "democracy" in the process, and... well, we'll just have to wait and see what happens, won't we?

What we know now is that here at this juncture, with a full-on crisis on so many fronts, any of which have the potential to cause untold damage to the very foundations of our nation, Nader chooses to siphon votes away from McCain's opponent...and it's all because we stroked Nader's ego.

Knowing the consequences, you, Mr. Nader, are a traitor to the very causes you claim to adovcate. For that you are responsible.

We, your former supporters, regret ever doing so and hopefully most of us will never make that mistake again. For the grievous mistake of ever supporting you in the first place, we are all responsible.

So, not this time, Ralph. Not this time, not next time, not any time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you all remember how back in 2000 there was a plan to "trade votes": liberal voters in swing states would vote for Gore in exchange for liberal voters in states safely red or blue voting for Nader?
This seemed like a good idea to me at the time. But...
Ralph Nader nixed that idea, telling his supporters not to engage in the vote-trading scheme.
Hence, Gore lost Florida to Bush by only about 500 votes, while Nader got almost 100000 votes in Florida.
Bottom line: Nader's bad political decision to discourage vote-trading may VERY likely be responsible for the last 7 years of the Hell we live in where Bush/Cheney is the devil who torments us liberals.
I cannot ever forgive Ralph Nader for that.
And then, right after the 2000 election anyway, Nader was actually proud he helped elect Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the presidential race, vote with your mind, not your heart. Any democrat is better than another GOP slimeball. Ok, some of them aren't that far off, but at least they will get SOME progressive items passed.

If you really want to "make a statement" or some other drivel, why aren't you working harder to get Greens and other parties at the local and state level? Even the Congress? Why throw in a spoiler like Nader? He has no chance of winning without more political backing. He's an egomaniacal intern trying to become CEO.

If you're a progressive and you vote Nader, or you stay home, you are living in utopian idealism. I commend you for your spirit, but shame you for doing nothing. Better we get incremental improvements with the Dems than live in a fantasy world where someone like Nader, who will never win with the current system. You aren't going to change the system by throwing it away on a Nader vote. You need to start lower on the pole and work your way up for 3rd party viability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader announced this morning that he will run for president again. Allow me to play devil's advocate.

I WILL support and vote for the Democratic candidate this fall, whomever it might be. But it might be my last time, if they don't begin to show a LOT more spine. I'm fed up with the Reid/Pelosi cave-in strategy. Their behavior has raised the bar that Democrats MUST live up to over the next four years to retain my support. At a minimum, the next Dem administration (should they win) will HAVE to conduct serious investigations into possible crimes committed by the this one. Without that, I'll be out the door. And I'm skeptical it will happen.

So, in four years, I may find myself in the position Nader supporters do now, catching flak from Democrats for choosing a Green candidate. This year's Nader voters, who are all very aware of the calculus of the last several elections, may nonetheless be just one cycle ahead of me in disgust with how spineless the Democrats have been. Gore and Kerry each ran flawed campaigns, and didn't fight hard enough for their rightful votes. There is no shortage of reasons to be suspicious that behind the facade presented to the public, Dems are actually on board with the Repugs in many heinous ways.

Repeated polls over an extended period of time (including on this morning's "Meet the Press") have consistently shown that Obama would defeat McCain head-to-head, but Clinton would lose to McCain. It strikes me that the same scorn Dems pour on Nader voters ("Do you want us to lose again?"), should fairly be directed by Obama voters toward Clinton supporters.

Here's where I stand: My more-favored candidates, Kucinich then Edwards, have bailed. I lean slightly more toward Obama than Clinton, but neither of them has convinced me they'll do what I think is most important. Nonetheless, I'll support whomever gets the '08 Dem nomination. I say this to explain I have no strong interest in undermining Hillary. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture.

It strikes me that the same reasoning used to scorn Nader Voters ("Do you want us to lose again?"), also applies to Clinton supporters. It can fairly be used by Obama supporters to urge Hillary supporters to re-think their choice, and Clintonites should consider how their personal stubbornness in not supporting the Dem with the widest appeal may be putting the next presidency at risk.

Let's face it, the Clinton campaign has made some serious strategic errors, and has not lived up to their poll-expectations in the primaries. The belief this would change, and Hillary would do better than her poll-expectations next fall, stretches credulity. Are her supprorters willing to take that risk of losing the Oval Office in '08?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would prefer he not run, but, honestly, why shouldn't he. And why should want to have diminished options for voting? The thing about Ralph is I wish he had stayed involved with the Greens, done some real party building, rather than these weird races he now runs where it does seem to be all about him. I agree with the woman who said he should head up a child product safety initiative. Why he doesn't attempt to work with our nominee (Democratic) and help educate him (or her) and move her to his way, I don't know. Maybe it is all about ego with him.

But he's done a lot of good things, and if he can raise $10 million, I don't have a problem with it. And if we do what we're supposed to do this time, as opposed to Gore who couldn't even win his own damn state in 2000) it shouldn't be close enough to bring his votes into play. I think he ran last time and he wasn't the margin of victory for Bush.

Just breathe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to Barack, he's going to bring about change by changing the atmosphere in Washington. Create consensus. That's the argument anyway - we all remember the Change Revolution that was the Democratic takeback of Congress in 2006, and how well that has paid off for the average American and the guys getting shot at in Iraq.

In Obama's world, the Republicans who have been hard at work screwing the country over for as long as possible are going to repent, rather than do what they can to get what they want.

Have any of you given pause to think about his bipartisan change schtick for two seconds? Bipartisanship doesn't work with the current crop of Republicans. Coming to an agreement with them on something like Social Security implies half-destroying it, rather than fully destroying it. (Incidentally, Goldman Sachs, Obama's largest contributor, is a huge investment bank that has been committed to the partial privatization of Social Security and banking industry deregulation. Keep that in mind when you hear Obama talking about "protecting Social Security".)

But this is how it goes in the US. Politics is cyclical. When the right-wing gets the pendulum swinging their way, they run amok with deregulation, union busting, militarism, slashing social programs, and corporate welfare. Then the left gets the ball and they try to make friends and play nice with the guys that have been lobbing grenades at them for the past years. Then the right gets power again and they run their playbook again, running rampant.

And on and on rightward-ho we go, until unilateral invasions on false pretenses are something that impeachment is "off the table" about, and torture's something that's sort of, yeah, unfortunate, but hey what are people gonna do. Oh yeah, that's where things are now.

The fact that a segment of the population rejects that philosophy is an indictment of the Democratic Party, not of the people they turn away as a result of what they choose to stand for.

Take single-payer healthcare; it's the most affordable, most efficient way of providing it. The way it works is to pay doctors money to make people healthy, rather than pay insurance companies to keep a lot of the money and give what's left to doctors to make people healthy. This isn't hard to understand or explain, but it means confronting the distortions and lies that the right will throw at you. But instead of trying to do that, we get this ridiculously compromised plan that health insurance companies must love looking forward to, as the government will be subsidizing the costs the insurance companies will be imposing. And the countries with actual national healthcare systems must be laughing their collective asses off when Hillary has the temerity to utter her "universal healthcare" plan, or Barack proposes the same one but without the financial penalties.

You all know why the Democrats don't get behind it, and continuing to support them anyway won't incentivize them to change their tune. So don't blame Nader; the Democratic Party has only themselves to blame for the "problem" he presents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Incredible. ONLY in America could people on the "left" (yeah, right) persuade themselves that running for president is the privilege of those who descend from a political dynasty and/or those who are endorsed by corporate america. Preventing Nader from running is RAPING democracy, plain and simple.

I lost my confidence in Alternet a long time ago, but it's gone too far. You call yourselves progressives? If you think Nader should not spoil your precious Democratic party (aka watered-down Republican party), then you are one step closer to becoming the party you are trying to dethrone. No one else sees the immense IRONY of these totalitarian/undemocratic comments?

It's one thing expressing opinion, but John Ehrenfield has been watching too much Fox News: "[...] Ralph Nader's place in history as the most narcissistic, ego-maniacal, self-destructive muckraker in political history." Delete the name from the above sentence, and you've got the perfect description of a Clinton.

Once again, the Democrats do NOT own my vote. I am NOT a Democrat, just like I am NOT a fascist, a Communist, a libertarian or ANYTHING else. I vote for whoever REPRESENTS my views. As soon as Kucinich and Edwards dropped out, I was at a loss. Now, I found the guy I want to vote for.

Go aheas, vote for those who SUPPORTED Bush's wars, simply because they were COWARDS. And guess what? The Democrats have ALSO done a fair amount of meddling in the world: Cyprus and the former Yugoslavia (I know, the US "left" believes it was justified to stop ethnic cleansing from one side, and totally reverse it so that the other side was cleansed) happened under Dems.

And it seems your wonderful candidates are fighting over who will be more Bush-like in case of another terrorist attack (which is UNAVOIDABLE now, stupid). Wasn't it Clinton who said she would 'bomb the hell out of 'em' if another attack happened? Oh, maybe it's ok if a Democrat does it, as long as it ain't a red (sigh...) president!

Go ahead. Elect a watered-down Republican and your future 'wars on terror'. I WILL NOT HAVE BLOOD ON MY HANDS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing to note:

2 of Ralph's "12 issues that matter" are about HIM.

1. Open up the Presidential debates
2. Put an end to ballot access obstructionism

While these might be good issues to talk about, they are certainly not central issues, and I think it is very telling that Ralph chooses to take up TWO slots in his 12 most important issues list to address things that personally irk him in his bids to become president. Narcissistic much? Neither of these issues affect anyone other than Ralph Nader.

It is also interesting that he says neither Obama nor Clinton support "Reversing US policy on the Middle East." Ummm Ralph? That is EXACTLY what Obama is promising to do... you say he has taken that issue "off the table" and yet he is talking about doing exactly that in just about every speech (and has drawn a considerable amount of flak for doing so).

And where are Ralph's plans to help the economy? Launching an all-out war on corporations isn't exactly going to help (it may be necessary in the long run, but is it timely? I think not).

So yeah.... Vote for Nader IF:

1. You want the US to lose its last claim to Superpower status (its military).
2. You want corporate America to leave the country.
3. You want the economy to enter a whole new class of depression.
4. You want to vote for a guy who is so intensely dogmatic on his own 40-year-old platform that he cannot see reality for what it is.

Frankly, I think Ron Paul is more in touch with reality than Ralph Nader... and Ron Paul scares me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, it's awful. Here in our hallowed democracy for a citizen to dare to stand for office in an election. It's a disaster. How do we prevent this calamity? We don't want people just willy nilly running for office and other people just willy nilly actually voting for them or anyone else they choose. It's truly a say day for our democracy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing is more narcissistic and ego-maniacal than the arrogant attitude that, in a democracy, you're entitled to certain people's votes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It just hit me. The whole Nader candidacy is some kind of Karl Rove wet-dream.
Yeah, Nader HAD (at one time) liberal cred. But now I would be very wary of those urging him on. Whose side are they on REALLY?

Watch. Nader's 2008 run will gather hardly any contributions from liberals, not when compared to the amount of contributions he will receive from conservative groups.
Here is a test: If Nader rejects the money from all conservative groups, then go ahead and vote for the ego-maniac.
But if he takes the money, whose side is he then working for? Really?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ralph Nader would not been an effective president because in a sense he doesn't really understand how Washington works. THEORETICALLY (or, rather, historically), the president's power is limited. One of the problems with Carter's presidency (although not the only one) is that he pissed off Congress by challenging the status quo thereby losing his allies there. A good (or bad) president can only succeed with the cooperation of Congress (and that includes the bad that this administration has done with the cooperation of Congress).

While I agree with him that corporations have too much power in our government, him becoming president would not change that. Ralph Nader as president would be as ineffective and eventually as unpopular as Carter. Even if he behaved like this administration and usurped too much power and used it to implement some of his pet project, unlike our current president, Nader would be impeached faster than you could say "Goodbye Ralph." Because, unlike Bush, Nader would truly be challenging the power structure (aka, corporations). Believe me, if Bush suddenly started to implement policies Nader would support, you can bet impeachment would no longer be off the table!

And as a symbolic gesture, Nader on the ticket isn't going to change anything either. He would have to actually win (in a landslide, no less) before anyone in the government would actually listen to him and then they would attack him like cornered rats. Losing some votes to Nader would be nothing but a short term annoyance.

If Nader really wants to change things, what he really should be doing is working to get politicians who support his ideology elected both locally and nationally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...To raise the visibility of the Green Party. I wish that Ralph had used his extremely valuable 15-20 minutes this morning on MTP to say he wasn't running and to spend the rest of the time speaking in favor of the virtually invisible candidacy of Cynthia McKinney.

I voted for Ralph in 2000, and have NO regrets. As others have said, neither major party owns my vote, and yes I'll vote my conscience if I damn well please. Brother Jeb and that bitch Katherine Harris stole the election from Gore (that and his inability to win his home state - wasn't McGovern the last Democrat to do that trick?). There was no way I would ever have voted for any ticket with Joe Lieberman on it. I think that decision has been vindicated many times over since.

There also is no way I will EVER vote for another sell-out, triangulating, corporatist, DLC Clinton. And after learning as much about Obama that I can find from non-corporate media, I won't be voting for him either. I was a die-hard Kucinich supporter, and will be voting for probable Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney in November. Ralph, please join THAT ticket, and truly "ROCK THE VOTE".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tell me, do you really believe that the differences among Clinton, Obama, McCain are not just cosmetic???

They are all, unfortunately, representatives of old/entrenched power. They are all morally corrupt. Be realistic! You can't practice politics from the inside, be a part of these two great parties in power and be otherwise!

In the presidential candidates, you had three highly efficient demagogues. I happen to think that they are ridiculous, sad, borderline criminal demagogues putting up a great show for a great country full of people who like shows.

Now we have Nader. I hope that I am not the only one who votes for him instead of voting for some version of a "lesser of the two evils".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ralph is a closet Republican - nothing else explains this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something Nader and his people don't comment on, or find irrelevant: both Barack Obama and John McCain are on record at FairVote.org as supporting Instant Runoff Voting.

I'd rather elect Obama, demand IRV from him and Congress and hopefully create a future situation in which a vote for Nader will NOT equal a vote for McCain.

How I wish Nader had followed the example of John B. Anderson, who some would call the Man who Made Reagan Possible. Rather than run again, and be an election spoiler yet again, he has worked with FairVote.org to promote change in the electoral system.

We need Instant Runoff Voting, now or as soon as we can get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This video is pretty pathetic and silly. The robot voice is childish. This is why so many people are not taken seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find it disconcerting to think that this article could be endorsed by a progressive forum or published by advocates of "change". Ralph Nader has acted as a dedicated public servant and consumer advocate outside of the political realm, engaging with that world as a "reform lobbyist", one of the rarest forms of public service I know of.

Yet when he takes his legitimate views into the public eye, time and again he is portrayed as an ego-maniac where the regular politician would receive no such mentions, if only because it is assumed that all politicians running for public office have "healthy leadership qualities" and not "an inflated sense of ego and disproportionate views of their influence".

Why is it narcissistic to open the public debate to issues which are completely off of the debated agenda? Corporate abuse of human rights, the so-called trade agreements in which countries are opened up to our labor needs while receiving little other benefit, can hardly be classified as "trade".

This country needs a third party, or at least the common perception that there is a choice besides the Democrats and the Republicans. If no one else is willing to offer an alternative, I say let your ego inflate, there will obviously be plenty of people supposedly "working for change" to put you back in your place. And apparently instantaneously.

So much for thoughtful reporting this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 2000, Nader took 2.73% of the popular vote. In 2004, after progressives and Democrats got a taste of Bush, he pulled 0.38%.

What will he get this year? The same or less than the Constitution Party. In the meantime, he'll impact the discourse in positive ways.

What's everyone so worked up about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There will be two viable candidates in the fall election - a Republican, most likely McCain, and a Democrat.
Now those who would vote for one of the possible Democratic candidates and not the other, but who don't like McCain well enough to vote for him in any case give a de facto vote to McCain because the Democrat will have one less vote. It hardly matters whether the person votes for Nader or nobody. In 2000 enough people voted for Nader that it made the overall popular vote difference about 500,000, in favor of Gore, of course, since there was never a real recount in Florida.
Of course, for any of us it depends on what state we vote in. If our state is more or less a shoe in for the candidate for one party then we can not vote at all and it won't change the electoral vote. But a lot of states will be in contention this year.
Since Nader has no chance of winning there's no point in voting for him. It can make the voter feel satisfied, but they're just throwing their vote away. The message that the candidates should be more progressive is lost in any case. There are other political outlets that dissatisfied citizens should use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(I realize it will probably go to his campaign staff first...)

You can send a message at http://www.votenader.org/contact/ .

If you, like me, and I suspect the majority of readers here, think that his candidacy is a horrible idea (because it will take away votes from the Democratic candidate), then do something about it. Write him a message and ask him to withdraw immediately. Maybe, it's not bloody likely I know, but just maybe, if enough of us send a message asking him to quit and explain why... he'll GET the message! (It certainly can't hurt.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody here is trying to silence Nader. He has done and is doing a lot of good work.
So why run for president? It doesn't make his message clearer. It just threatens to take votes away from the 2 party candidates.
They're not perfect for sure, but they are different. Voters have a choice.
In 2000 too many people thought there was no important difference between Bush and Gore.
Well, we wouldn't be in Nirvana if Gore had won, but I don't think our government would be tainted with a history of torture and the near destruction of Iraq. Maybe Gore would even have paid attention to Richard Clarke and who knows, maybe 9/11 might have been prevented. Remember "Bin Laden determined to strike within US" a CIA memo that Bush paid no attention to.
We shouldn't fool ourselves that it doesn't matter who is in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop being bullies. If you don't like Nader, then don't vote for him. But please don't presuppose that you have the right to tell me who to vote for. And don't act like he OWES it to you not to run, or I OWE it to you not to vote for him. Dems better start earning their support, and stop taking it for granted.

That said, I'll probably vote Obama, but I must say I'm glad to have the choice. And having Nader in there will help shift the debate further to the left ... a good thing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's silly of him to try and jump to the top and try (in vain) to run for president. I don't think people would mind him holding a lower office like a congressional seat.

If he did that and actually won a seat, he wouldn't be screwing the whole country over by taking precious votes from the Dems, and he would be in a position where the nation would hear him as a politician.

Or if we had instant runoff voting, he could run for prez and not tilt the election towards the insane ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh yea;

That was the Democrats Job.

And they failed again!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not again! Just when the Democrats FINALLY have a chance to rid this country of the WORST administration in American history, the "spoiler" shows up. I sincerely hope that the American people have the intelligence to dismiss this idiot for what he is: an independent working(and probably being paid) by and for the Republican party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is commonly found in countries where any kind of coalition has to function and is called "coalition politics". In a nutshell, the democratic party need neither ignore nor vilify Nader's candidacy. They have the option also to negotiate with Nader (who would exact his "pound of principles") - e.g. offer to co-opt some of his demands in their own campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conspiracy theory ... has anyone considered that this pompous azz is a REPUKLICAN operative??? He is the only candidate that has consistently refused to release his financial statements - WHY??? I would like to know the source of his funds duing the 1999 - 2008 period!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]