About time someone else admits Nader didn't cause gore to "lose" the 200 election. If I recall, Gore actually won, but the election was stolen.

Democrats need a gadfly like Nader to remind them who they are supposed to be representing. Which Democratic candidate is campaigning on single payer health care, aggressive corporate crime prosecution, green energy, cutting the bloated military budget, or repealing Taft-Hartley?

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

Having voted a third party/independent ticket all my life, I understand the value of the protest vote.....but this is more about ego than elections. Even though I wrote him in in 2000, my state didn't have him on the ballot, that was before the debacle in which a partisan 'Supreme' Court halted the counting of the votes to annoint the present Decider in Chief, leading ou present spiral into the Twilight Zone. But this is the time to prevent Mr. '100 years in Iraq' "Keating 5' lobbyist loving McCain from having control of the button, who thinks war is a natural state of being. Please, Ralph, have pity on America.....oh, the humanity!

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

Voting out Republicans is fine and well, but replacing them with Democrats who share their agenda (as Clinton does to a substantial degree) or wish to "bring the country together" by moving more rightward than leftward (Obama's plan and promise) does little to correct the impact of George Bush pretty much getting his way regardless of which party held the majority in Congress.

This IS precisely the time to vote for a third party candidate. When the Democrats are poised to deliver a senator with a dubious record of experience and accomplishment or a senator with feel good appeal but very little strategic savvy backing his words, why waste a vote on their pick for the presidency? Quite simply, we cannot afford any more posturing or capitulation to the corporate overlords who set policy for Republicans and Democrats alike.

The problem is not that Ralph Nader is a third party candidate, the problem is that Ralph Nader is even less likely to be an effective executive than Clinton or Obama--which is pathetic. Nader deserves plenty of criticism for being nothing more than a capable critic himself. Let's not use his personal shortcomings to argue against the concept of a third party candidate at this critical hour, however. With the dismal choices presented thus far, a third party candidate is the best hope for the future of the U.S., however slight the odds of such a leader emerging between now and November.

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

Mr. Nader has previously called the Democratic Party “decayed", “too cautious and too indentured” to big corporations, “commercially rigged,” and “very good at electing very bad Republicans". The two major parties, he said, “are converging with more and more similarities towering over the dwindling real differences they’re willing to struggle over.”

From the New York Times article dated February 22nd, Mr. Nader announced his Sunday appearance on Meet The Press in an e-mail message to supporters of his exploratory committee, formed in January, encouraging them to watch and donate money to his effort. “Who will pick up these issues and put them back on the table?” the message asks, after listing causes like single-payer health care and impeaching President Bush -- causes that have been “pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year.” Now, he's jumped into the race.

With his stinging anti-corporate rhetoric, Mr. Nader is perhaps the leading candidate for real change; real hope. However, given the potential ramifications of a McCain presidency on the parity of the Supreme Court, I will vote for the nominated Democrat, albeit with clothespin attached to my nose, under the following assumption: that my state is deemed a swing-state in this next election. Otherwise, my vote will be cast for Mr. Nader.

I hope others will make the same pledge.

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

I have no intention of voting for a Democrat, and yet I can't support Nader. Not only is he clearly past his time, but he has actively done a lot to discredit himself in the past few years. When you claim to be a progressive champion committed to changing the electoral process, you probably shouldn't effectively disappear until the next time for you to run the same old campaign comes around.

More than that, though, I dislike Nader because he has in recent years harmed what movement there is toward a third party option. First of all, he has made "third party" synonymous with "Nader", which in turn is synonymous for either "joke" or "Republican-empowering spoiler", depending on who you ask (though the "spoiler" argument is, as said in this article, complete bullshit). Let's not forget, either, how he chose to run against the Green Party's actual nominee in 2004, and is likely to do so again, which will be yet another blow to the credibility of the people actually looking to present an alternative. So no, I can't support his run.

My vote is extremely likely to go to Cynthia McKinney, for what it's worth.

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

The Dems asked for this:

* Didn't fight back when Bush & The Supremes stole the 2000 election

* Didn't fight back against the Repub election fraud in Ohio in 2004

* Went along with Bush getting us mired in a very costly war in Iraq.

* Didn't fight back against Bush's many impeachable offenses: lying. illegal wiretaps, torture, and much more.

* Didn't fight back against continued funding of the Iraq war.

* Didn't fight back against corporate tax breaks for oil companies. I already give Exxon enough money at the pump, they don't deserve my tax dollars too.

* Haven't fought for the tough changes needed to address global warming.

* Haven't fought for universal health care, just talk about it a lot while doing nothing.

For nearly eight years now, the Dems have just gone along with whatever Bush and the Repubs want. Under no circumstances can they claim that they have earned my vote.

I want to vote for the opposition, not the doormat party. If the Dems would just stand up and be the opposition, I would gladly vote for them.

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

Though he is a far and away superior to clear and present corporate stooges Hillary and Obama (to say nothing of mad Fascist McCain) Nader also has credibility issues.

Nowhere in his platform does Nader address practical steps to fundamentally transform a de facto corporate crime ruling class system to something approaching sanity.

That would (for example) include dismantling of an unconstitutional "Federal Reserve" Corp private bank fraud, lobbyist ejection from DC and some kind of trustworthy ombudsman oversight to reinstitute the Constitution with its Bill of Rights and its rule of law intact. (nixing corporate personhood is helpful but far from enough)

In other words, there are no real or lasting Nader steps to guarantee valid democracy in place of the Washington-MSM carny show imitation owned by corporate monopoly.

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

Lots to say but will limit to this:
Mr. Holland rightly attacks the Republicans for the justices and policy chiefs they appoint.
However, not once did the Democrats truly challenge them. The Supreme Ct. was voted for by the Dems when they knew we were getting.

Having competent people in positions of power through appointments only means more efficient corporate hacks. Enron was prosecuted under Bush (reluctantly) but thrived under Clinton.

NAFTA destroyed so much: small farms in Latin America, small businesses in the US, etc. Is that any different than today? We are just seeing the results under Bush.

War? Democrats would only make war more appealing to the masses and the European Union.
Clinton's entire presidency was war with Iraq. Not on the news but in the streets from above.

More later.

Myles Hoenig

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

"One can piss and moan all one wants about how conservatives are more 'disciplined'...but the reality is that liberals and progressives will always chafe at the idea of being told how to vote."

I'd like to think so.

It's funny how many "progressives" accused Nader of being washed-up, out-of-touch, irrelevant...but then accused him of "spoiling" the anybody-but-Bush campaign. I mean, if he's really that irrelevant, why are they so worried?

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

I'm backing McKinney.
I hope she runs a new safe state strategy. Stay away from the states that are safe for the D and R. Make them sweat. Make them earn every vote. And then let the Democrats blame themselves when their candidate can't reach these voters.
Myles H

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

(Warning silliness follows)
"Al Gore is not a spoiler. Ralph Nader won the election. George Bush lost. So, did Al Gore. George and Al stole the election from Ralph. Some are under the misconception that this stealing was from mass misreporting of the vote counts largely co-ordinated by the Democratic party and the Republican party, but that is a falseness. The truth is that the election was stolen by a combination of the following two egregious wrongs of masterminded enfranchisement and disenfranchisement. The first wrong is the enfranchisement of those who freely choose only amongst the choices presented by the mass media and are oblivious to almost all of the other choices. The other significant wrong is the disenfranchisement of most of the people living in the American Empire (all the places that those who govern the government of USA control militarily or economically). A vote which takes into account the educated wishes of all those in the American Empire would have clearly shown Ralph Nader as the leading choice. Hence Ralph won the popular choice of those in the American Empire who can make well educated choices, but the election was stolen from Ralph."
Semi-jokingly,
Silly Me

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

Holland,

You spend your intellectual effort explaining why Nader was not to blame for the Democrat's losses on 2002 & 2004 but then you say in your last paragraph that you will not vote for Nader this time around. What a lot of baloney. Talk about recidivist stupidity!

Nader's presence in the 2000 election was directly the responsibility of a split democratic party whose naive sense of realpolitik had schizoid notions about Nader. In reality Nader's political shtick is noteworthy only for the devastation left in his wake. This do-gooder has been a wolf in sheep's clothing for the past 8 years and no measure of ascribing blame to others will redeem him in my eyes as a egocentric spoiler.

I weep for the thousands of lives his skewed sense of righteousness has cost. The State of our nation and its current malaise. Spare me, Holland, put the blame at his front door..where it clearly belongs.

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

Ralph is in the running. Now ask yourselves this question: Whom do you think is going to keep "the base" in line - Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

It's a good question. Particularly if you consider the possibilty that the Clintonistas might try to steal this thing by seating the Michigan and Florida delegation. If that happens, it's all over, baby! Senator Clinton won those contests only by accindent. Who knows how many people stayed home because the knew their voted didn't count? Had that not been the case, the results would probably been very different indeed.

Jon Stewart asked a very good question on Larry King Live last night: What makes those people "super delegates"? Were they bitten by a radio-active beetle? If the Clinton campaign is able to steal this thing, the party's base will bolt to Nader so fast, they won't know what hit them.

We can't afford to have the White House in the hands of the GOP for another four years.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

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

It's curious that Mr. Holland would say all the right things about Ralph Nader, and yet say that this is no time for a third-party run.

Au contraire, it is the best of times for a third-party candidacy. With Dennis Kucinich forced from the race because corporate Democrats are trying to steal his House seat, and with Edwards declining to run uphill anymore, Ralph Nader is the best person I can think of to hold the Democratic nominee's feet to the fire and continue to press for progressive values.

As for being a spoiler, Nader answered that Sunday on "Meet the Press." If the Democrats can't win in 2008, he said, then maybe the Party should be disbanded. Ralph will be no spoiler. Instead he will serve as a conscience for the Democratic Party. Will I vote for him? That will depend on how well the Democratic nominee heeds his conscience.

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

"So, Democrats should stop telling people whom to support or what to do with their votes. This is America, and that's just wrong."

I thought that was the basis of electoral politics - replace "telling people whom to support" is the same as "promoting a candidate".

The real reason a lot of people are furious with Nader is not so much is spoiler behavior, but his tacit and active support for GW Bush after the stolen 2000 election, including a failure to condemn his fraudulent selection, on one hand, and his lack of political action other than to run against Democratic candidates every four years.

Here's a must read on Nader and Bush:
Ralph Nader's political olive branch to Bush, March 2001"

"Nader and Weissman sought to couch their enthusiasm for aspects of the Bush administration—above all its extreme nationalist and unilateralist predilections—in measured terms. The article, published March 7, began:

“If it took Richard Nixon to go to China, could George W. Bush be the president who ends corporate welfare as we know it?

“That doesn't appear likely. But in a budget outline that offers little reason to smile to those concerned about the concentration of corporate power, the Bush administration has offered a glimmer of hope on the corporate-welfare front.” . . .

Nader's conceptions may not be terribly profound, but he is not as credulous as he makes out. He is not unaware, for example, of the significance of the timing of his article, and, even more to the point, where it appeared. That Nader rushed into print in the first weeks of the new administration, indeed, within days of Bush's nationally televised budget address, and published his flattering missive on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, was itself a political statement.

The Journal was no doubt delighted to feature a laudatory piece from the supposedly “left” Nader. Its op-ed pages are notorious as the repository for the most unabashed attacks on democratic rights and the most brazen defenses of wealth and privilege. The Journal serves as the semi-official house organ of the Republican right and spearheaded two political coups in recent years: the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to topple the Clinton administration in the sex-scandal-driven impeachment campaign, and the successful effort to install Bush through the suppression of votes in Florida.

To anyone who has seriously followed Nader's political trajectory, the Wall Street Journal olive branch to the Bush administration could not have come as a complete surprise. . .

Nader is ignorable.

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

Gotta say, I don't think Nader's going to have any traction this time. He can posture all he likes on the high road but people are more engaged on the left than any time I can remember since the sixties, and they're not so despairing as to throw away their votes on a man who has never been elected to any public office. Besides, he's really late to the party.

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

my comment was so long i had to blog it. you are dead wrong here.

http://getangrywithme.typepad.com

titled "alternet gets it dead wrong (for once)"

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

but because he has fought a long and righteous battle against the corporate monster that has replaced democracy in America. Given what passes for 'public service' in America and having witnessed the kind of creeps and crooks that populate the halls of government and industry, (including those who wear the democrat label) attacking Mr. Nader is repulsive, mean-spirited, and plainly stupid for anyone who seeks a progressive American government. The left is always in a state of hysteria because the truth doesn't find airtime and the 'leadership' refuses to go looking. Nader brings out important questions that NEED to be talked about. That is the real reason he is dismissed by the corporate 'left'. I think we can agree that there are powerful interest groups that play an inordinate and detrimental role in policy making in the United States. Who would be the person likely to confront them? Well, I doubt that it is going to be any of the 'team players' in the democratic party.
Whatever a person might think about Ralph Nader, he has never surrendered and he cannot be captured by anything or anyone. And just as a passing thought, just why did Mr. Obama change his position on Palestine. Gosh, it turns out to be identical to Mr. McCain's, and Mrs. Clintons, and Gosh... I guess the same as every officeholder and officeseeker in the USA

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

I think it's time to consider a method of voting that will allow people to vote preferentially - make a conscience vote and then a pragmatic vote. It's what Australia does, it works and is truly democratic. We did it in the Maine Democratic caucus. It is empowering to be able to make a statement and know that you're not "throwing away" your vote, you can declare your next preference. No more electoral college.

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

As a liberal Democrat for the past 50 years, who has never voted for anyone who was not a Democrat, and as the former Chair of the Iowa Hardin County Democrats who worked tirelessly for Gore and Edwards with time and money and my home, believing in the right of all women to elect abortion, of people not government voting for or against a war, of requiring hire education standards, fixing a bankrupt economy, and ending outsourcing and deficit spending, if Obama is the Democratic candidate with his name-calling and pandering, I will vote for Nader and leave the DNC that disenfranchises voters because they chose a different date--which is their right--and not subject to a DNC decision. Go Ralph!

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

Yeah, baby--McCain is over 70 and Nader is around the same age, I believe. What we really need in the White House is--a GEEZER! (Well, Ronald Reagan is now regarded by the Repubs. as the Second Coming--so why not?

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

Nader should be rotting in prison for the egomania that led him to run in 2000 -- when the major parties offered a dramatic difference. Without Nader's run, there might not have been an Iraq or massive tax cuts -- the jackass helped elect Bush. But Nader only matters in the freakish election we had in 2000. He's never taken enough votes to get funding. Obama will outshine him for star appeal. He's a sad little clown, a Harold Stassen, ending a great career in a fit of indulgent irrelevance.

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

I would love to see the strangle hold both partys have on congress broken. I would love to see Greens,Liberterians, right alongside Dems and Repugs. It takes the kind of grass roots support that Ron Paul invigorated to get this going.

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

What is it with these old men, why don't they have some fun for a change instead of attention seeking.

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

Thanks again, Josh...you cover the topic well, almost too well. And now maybe I can quit feeling guilty for voting for Nader in 2000, even though my absentee ballot up here in Canada didn't effect the Michigan results.

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

How could you vote for a Democrat?

They had the chance to impeach Bush and Cheney for their many crimes - and did nothing.

Impeachment is not discussed during Clinton and Obama's debates.

Have the Democrats forgotten that the Iraq War was based on lies which are documented?

It seems that the Democrats will let Bush and Cheney, not only walk away free without paying for their crimes, but these thugs will get a government pension and a full security detail.

What is wrong?

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

Nader has to get out of the race for president. He should be in local politics only. He's embarrassing himself... again. There is no point in him being in the mix, not now or ever again... no one wants him for president, and he knows it. He's seventy-three years old... he's too old and so is McCain. Nader should just stay on the lecture circuit and try to change what people are thinking on a smaller, local level.

This might sound a little paranoid, but something tells me that he's an unknowing ruse on behalf of the republicans, to steal votes away from the democrats. I mean, why now? What's the point?

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

Great essay, Joshua.

In the inside-out, upside-down world we live in, Nader running for president can only help the Dems.

They'll now be able to generate enough Nader-fear to bring out more Dem voters. Also they'll have another good chance to blame Nader (rather than themselves) for Bush.

Just as the PRI in Mexico used to underwrite PAN, the opposition party, to make the "elections" look like elections, if the Dems aren't behind Nader's running, they should be.

It's really a Rove-world. (McCain's supposedly damaging affair with a lobbyist helps him by making a frail old physical wreck look virile and brings the wild Right over to his side against the NYT which still pretends to be liberal.)

Nothing is as it seems.

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

Let's face it. The same argument being used against Nader now has been used in the past and will be used in the future. As long as there is a 2-party system, any serious 3rd party bid to the left of the Democrats will be accused of stealing votes. Meanwhile, we end up with candidates like Hillary Clinton who we all know about. And then we have Obama whose economic advisers are typical DLC types. I wrote about them here

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

This below from Barack Obama, please read. think about it and tell me honestly you think this guy is an ordinary party wonk, or even like any leader we have ever known?

We are on the abyss folks, no time for lame protests, no excuse either. This is my last post on the subject of Nadar:

From Barack on 2/20:

"We learned something extraordinary since I wrote to you last night.

We've crunched all the numbers and discovered that we are within striking distance of something historic: one million people donating to this campaign.

Think about that ... nearly one million people taking ownership of this movement, five dollars or twenty-five dollars at a time.

We're already more than 900,000 strong, including over half-a-million donating so far this year. This unprecedented foundation of support has built a campaign that has shaken the status quo and proven that ordinary people can compete in a political process too often dominated by special interests.

Unlike Senator Clinton or Senator McCain, we haven't taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. Our campaign is responsible to no one but the people.

One million donors would be a remarkable feat -- something that's never been done before in a presidential primary and something no one ever thought would be possible for us. And your generosity made it possible.

But it's going to take an incredible organizing effort to bring in 100,000 new donors before March 4th." .....

"We started this improbable journey a little over a year ago in Springfield, Illinois.......

If we can reach our goal of one million donors by March 4th, we can send a powerful message that the Washington establishment and big-money interests cannot ignore.

As one million people with one voice, we can tell them that their days of dominating Washington are coming to an end -- the old politics are crumbling and a new voice is breaking through. Our voice.

I learned the power of ordinary people coming together as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago.

I worked side-by-side with people who had been laid off from steel plants that were moved overseas. These were people who needed new jobs to rebuild their lives, and their political leaders were ignoring them.

But even though the odds were stacked against them, they discovered that by coming together with one voice, they could no longer be ignored.

When we launched this campaign, we knew we were up against similar odds. We knew we'd be running against a massive political machine with deep ties to the Washington establishment.

We knew it wouldn't be easy.

But if we can do this, we're not just going to win an election. We're going to change our country.

Thank you so much,

Barack"

Posters note: I send Barack $25 every other week when I get paid, believe me I sure can't afford to do it. I am no party wonk, I just want them to do their jobs and be honest. Obama offers much more than that, he is speaking to the heart of this country, he is what America WANTS to be! I am delighted to contribute to his campaign!

Someone said, I can't remember who it was, "Things don't change, we change."

Our country is ALREADY changing in a BIG way, can't you see the difference? Do you think voters are falling victim to an ordinary candidate in a nice package? Learn about Obama and get back to me. He probably WON'T be everything you want, but if you demand everything you want from ANY president you are hopelessly unreasonable AND unrealistic.

But cast your precious ballot. Voting for ANYONE is FAR FAR better than not and it is your DUTY as an AMERICAN!!

YES WE CAN! WE ALREADY ARE!

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

With the news about Larry Sinclair's three hour lie detector test just about to hit the MSM, Rove calls up his old friend Nader and tells him to cast in, the GOP needs a backup spoiler. And sends over a few huge checks from some of a thousand bs GOP front organzations.

And Nader the GOP whore does his masters' bidding.

This Presidential race and the Rove/GOP spoiler/shill/decoy/Judas Goat tactics and their timing couldn't be more obvious than if they ran a superbowl ad.

At least to those of us who fight their minions and their tactics every day of our lives.

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

It's all well and good to say that Nader didn't cost the dems the 2000 election because Gore mismanaged the Florida endgame, and that Nader was just exercising his right to run for office, but the fact of the matter is that our winner-take-all electoral system turns third parties into spoilers, and had Ralph not run (at least he might have urged his backers to vote for the lesser evil in the final days prior to the election), shrub/Jeb/Cheney wouldn't have succeeded in stealing the election and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Until we embrace Instant Runoff Voting or change to a parliamentary system, candidates running outside the two main parties will simply steal votes from the party closer to their philosophy.

I agree with Ralph about the corporate takeover of government, and I favored John Edwards over Hillary or Barrack, but I believe that the last seven years shows that there's still a big difference between even establishment democrats and the republicans, and I fear that Nader may draw enough support to give McCain a chance.

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

*
*
The only difference I ever found between the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership is that one of them is skinning you from the ankle up and the other, from the neck down.

Huey P. Long


Direct Primaries!

Direct Elections!

Direct Democracy!

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

And progressives should remember Nader's contributions and defend him against the scurrilous charge that he was responsible for Bush.

Sorry Joshua, but there is a logic gap in your argument. The fact that Gore failed to adequately contest the Republican claims in Florida isn't cancelled out by the fact that the Nader candidacy contributed to the closeness of the official vote tally to begin with.

That is was necessary for Gore to do what he failed to do and possible for Harris to do what she did was a situation for which Nader has a share of the responsibility.

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

While I find it extremely annoying that Nader comes out of the woodwork every four years, he is the best candidate left. Unfortunately his platform has already lost, ask Kucinich and Edwards.

“But I won't vote for him, because it's in my own self-interest, as an independent-minded liberal, to beat down the reactionary Right and send them scurrying back to their nests.”

If you really believe that crap, I have a bridge in NY and I will sell it to you cheap. That’s the game, we will let you throw the bums out once in a while if you just do not bother us. You continue to play their game, then whine because nothing changes. Universal health insurance and more free trade policies that let the beast gobble up slave labor is not changing. We will not leave Iraq until we the people unite an act in our best interest. When they no longer need our consumption, China and Russia will bankrupt us unless we control the flow of oil. The beast does have a problem; they can not send you down the river of slavery until they have complete control of the global economy. “The merchants of the world will weep and moan for who will buy their goods.” God bless the Iraqi nationalists, they are saving our ass. The least you could do is to refuse to participate in their corrupt democracy. Welcome to the revolution of 2012.

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

This country is screwed because of the predictable idiocy displayed in the comments of this site. The left is as much to blame as the Dittohead right for the paralysis and malaise that sustains the plutocracy. In electing Obama we have the opportunity as a nation to move forward in 2009, but instead we will probably have more of the same because liberal crybabies would rather stew in their self righteousness than effect change.

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

At the heart of that animalistic urge is the notion that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election and was responsible for placing Shrub in the White House, a revisionist history that's as ludicrous as it is pervasive within Democratic circles. The reality -- the hard data point that makes it a perfectly specious narrative -- is that Al Gore, had he immediately and forcefully demanded a recount of all the votes in the state of Florida, would have won and would probably be finishing up his second term right now. It was his decision -- one that Nader had nothing to do with(.)

Events in the real world are always complex and in order to think about them we are forced to introduce simplifications. However, it is always important that we recognize that we are making simplifications and review our conclusions to see if we have misled ourselves by over-simplifying. In this case, a critical simplification is the idea that a result has one and only one cause.

The fact is that isolating causes is very difficult and often times it is impossible to say that event A happened because of event B. In the case of the 2000 election one just cannot say that if Al Gore had demanded a full recount then a recount would have happened and Al Gore would have become president. There really is no way to tell what would have happened in this scenario. It is entirely possibly that the Supreme Court still would have stepped in and said that a full recount would have caused irreparable harm to Bush and we would have had the same end result.

It is equally impossible to say what would have happened had Nader not run in that election. We know that if everyone who actually voted for Nader had instead voted for Gore then Gore would have won . . . provided that any number of other contingent events did not change.

There are too many if's and we just cannot answer these kinds of what if questions. However, it is in no way unreasonable to think that Nader's entry into the race in 2000 was a contributing cause to its outcome. In other words, it was one of many factors that led to the installment of George W. Bush as president. Now that Nader is running again, that too could become a contributing cause that leads to the installment of another Republican president.

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

Yawn . . . you must be kidding. Why is this dusty, cobweb encrusted political non-entity running again? I mean, OK, I understand his message, some of which I do agree with, but this guy is never going to be elected for anything. And yes, I was one of those Al Gore supporters who truly believes, as evidence clearly indicates, that Gore may have had a decisive win had Nader not poked his presence into the 2000 election.

Which leaves me to speculate, what keeps this perhaps somewhat well intentioned, but hopelessly egocentric has-been plugged into the election process?

What if, just what if, a Karl Rove (or someone like him) keeps funneling money towards the Nader campaign, just enough to keep this political corpse alive, as a distraction from the real contenders in the race.

My question would be, to those Nader supporters out there, ever thought about that? Ever thought that perhaps your Nader candidate might
actually be the unwilling artifact of a Rovian style scheme to foment dissension?

Please, at least give this some thought - and Ralphy, please, stay home, sit this one out, please???

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

Until the US gets beyond two party electoral politics focused on a president, you cannot claim to be a democracy. It is clear that the polititcal process in the US has always been dominated by corporate power.

Mr Nader is a breath of fresh air man and the only real democracy will consist of a diversity of voices. All you have now is a horse race to see who can outspend who with the corporate media cheering the whole thing along - not to mention its role to pre-select candidates.

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

What Nader got wrong, and his critics and the Republican Party knew full well, is that without Nader's siphoning of votes from Gore, the whole Florida mess would never have happened.

Over 60 years ago, a British sociologist, Anton Duverger, elucidated one of the few "laws" of politics. Duverger's hypothesis states that, given a winner-take-all electoral system like ours, and voters who vote their personal interest, not a conscious strategy, a third party candidate only serves to draw votes from the closest major candidate.

40 years later, a UCLA grad student in mathematics wrote her masters thesis on a mathematical proof of Duverger's hypothesis using probability theory.

Perhaps Nader should be forgiven for the narcissism and hubris of his past campaigns, but the stakes are too high this time. Throwing his hat into the ring again puts a lie to everything he ever stood for.

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

Take a look at Nader's "platfrom" over at his website, http://www.votenader.org/issues/

NOTHING about some of the 800 pound gorillas in the room that we debate on progressive websites: the feckless war on some users of some drugs that drags on and on and overfills our prisons with non-violent persons of color.

Nader's "platform" is frozen in 1965. Corporations are the enemy. He's pro-consumer. Even the minor candidates of the two parties, the Kucinichs and Pauls, are bold enough to bring up the "drugs" issues, although the front runners are of course wary of this level of real discourse.

But what does this third party bid offer us? Nader isn't mentioning the drugs issues or others that got libertarians and progressives fired up. No, according to his website, and I quote, one of his TOP TWELVE policy ideas is to "Work to end corporate personhood".

Now that might be all well and good for Ralph's cloud cuckoo utopia, but that fixture of western societies since the days of enlightenment and the nation state is about as likely to go away or be seriously questioned anytime in the next several centuries as the "repeal" of the laws of gravity or supply and demand.

So, no, this guy doesn't deserve our support on any level, this time around. He brings no ideas to the table. This is simply a cult of personality publicity stunt, no matter how much you love Nader or think he was or wasn't a spoiler in 2000 (I say spoiler, would have preferred Gore) or love third parties (why isn't the Green Party in favor of legalizing pot like a lot of their youthful followers who turn out at the polls for decrim initiatives like Colorado...you need more support for a national party than hybrid owners). But I digress.

Nadar deserves to be dismissed in the bemused tone as other curious, quaint relics as "the perennial contender" such as the late Harold Stassen, or a Pat Paulsen without the humor and irony. Obama seemed to know the right tone to take to wave away this has-been, whose time on the serious political stage has passed. I give this guy less than 1% in November.

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

The more we vote for the type of candidates we really want instead of the type of candidates we are told by the Corporate-Media-Congressional Complex, the clearer it becomes that the system is rigged and the more difficult it becomes to fool ourselves that we can ever have democracy by playing the corrupt lesser-of-two-evils-will-save-us game. It is only because most of the electorate plays along with the false choice of Republican versus Republican-lite that the spin machines can convince most people that the election results vaguely resemble what really went on at the polls. When enough people wake up to the manipulation and disenfranchisement that has become routine, we might actually make some progress--which is what being a true progressive is all about. Voting for the Democrats, at this point, is anti-progressive and plays right into the hands of those who have been steadily rigging the system for as long as today's voters have been alive.

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

The democratic party must not have much appeal if a bland candidate like Nader who draws 2.7% of the vote can ruin things so bad for you suckers. Hell, I don't remember bush sr. supporters/republicans crying as much about Perot as dims cry about Nader.

The great Gore would have saved us from all the ills of the bush administration. LOL!!! Gore would have kept bombing Iraq(murderous war crime) and probably the former Yugoslavia. Gore probably would have probably kept funding the genocide in Palestine. If Gore had tried to do anything to stop these crimes, we probably would have liebernazi for president now.

Holland says, "But I won't vote for him, because it's in my own self-interest."

If I thought that way I'd never vote for a democrat. My life was terrible while clinton was president. I worked harder for less reward. I was never as unhappy as I was during those years. The government took more money from me than any other time while helping me less than any other time. I've never earned more than 30k/year yet scumbag republicans seem to let me keep more of it than clinton would.

I've tried to do as Holland says and vote for democrats in most primaries but the candidates I liked never make it so I vote libertarian in the general election. I voted for democrat senators in 1994 to try to thwart the "contract on america" only to have my one my senators turn traitor and become a republican. Seems like clinton went along with everything the republican congress wanted except his impeachment but now when the executive in committing much more heinous crimes, most of the democrats do nothing. The past 20 years has done nothing to make me think democrats are the answer but instead they are part of the problem.

I getting to the point that I see no reason to vote. The only thing I can do that might help is to be careful about where I spend my money.

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

I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000 as a protest.

In 1996 I voted for him in protest to the failed promise of the Clintons and, more specifically, for the immoral and cowardly way his administration ordered the UN to quit Rwanda. It's just one issue, but to me it spoke to failed leadership and an erosion in what America is "supposed" to stand for. In 2000, Gore failed to inspire me, and though he clearly was preferable to W, I figured that living in Blue New York my protest vote was safe and that I wouldn't play any role in putting the spoiled idiot in the White House.

The two major parties emit a foul, arrogant aura of entitlement. We do need a viable third party in the US to offer us a real alternative. Ultimately, that's the real reason for my protests. And that's also why I didn't vote for Nader in 2004, and why I'll never vote for him again. Because after 2000, I started to see the Green Party in a different light, and became deeply disillusioned.

In a nutshell: The Green Party in the USA is a joke. Don't get me wrong. On the issues, I agree with probably 99.9% of their platform. And I'd gladly support it if it showed ANY ability to mount an effective, bottom-up grassroots organizing campaign. Instead, the party's leaders seem to prefer to showcase political grandstanding. They appear to have no strategy, no purpose, other than to serve as perennial gadfly's content to stand on the sidelines thumbing their noses. It might make them feel good, and I'm sure it's great for constructing a nice social circle of like-minded souls, but as a way to achieve real change in the USA it's pointless.

Wouldn't the Green Party be better served by building up a strong political base at the grassroots, rather than these quixotic campaigns? It's telling that the Green Party can't even manage to elect a single member of the New York City Council. Walk, then run. There's no good reason that the Green Party can't get a Green Party candidate elected from the East Village, or Park Slope. That's fertile ground for the Green Party. Get a few council seats, and you start to have a voice in the policy process that effects real people's lives. Show people that the Green Party reps can deliver for the community, and you can expand your base beyond the crunchy liberals in those 2 neighborhoods. Maybe you pull in Bed-Stuy, or Gramercy. And it snowballs from there. Before you know it, maybe a Green Party candidate actually has a chance to become a borough president, or the Public Advocate, or the Mayor. Walk, then run.

Instead, they prefer to spend their energy on pushing Grandpa Munster for Governor or Nader for the White House, without any base from which to run. It's a joke.

When the Green Party becomes a viable third party with a real vision and strategy for achieving POWER and not just yelling into the wind, then I'll consider voting for its standard-bearer again.

As for Mr. Nader - I really hope he has fun with his vanity project, and enjoys counting his 251 votes.

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

Nader remains the only candidate who will mention whats not allowed for the "front runners": a criticism of corporate capitalism and the disaster that has overtaken the republic, i.e. bush and co.
Nader enlarges the debate, and doesn't narrow it to the corporate media dimensions the networks demand.

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

Glad Ralph is running. What is Electile dysfunction? That none of the candidates postured by either party can get anyone excited. There is no viagra for what ails this country. I'm for anyone who will stand up and say this is wrong and be willing to change the "SYSTEM", NO MATTER WHO'S MONEY IS IN POWER, that creates the problem.

Big governance at the federal level and gravitating "All Power", to that entity, no matter who controls it is not what our constitution says. I'm both a liberal and a conservative. I'm not moderate at all, but I can see that we currently had three "Establishment" candidates running for president. I'm glad Ralph is in. If this country needs anything it needs a third party and a House of Representatives independent of any corporate donations. In other words, no money filtered through the RNC or DNC. As long as the government can be bought, this is the course we will be on. Put any leader at the head and the results will eventually be the same. I agree it will move slower towards totalitarianism under the Democrats, but it will move that way.

For now, I will still vote for Obama, unless he moves to the "Center" and we ignore the poor, the enviornment, the weak, the youth, and the disenfranchised.

My fear is an Obama, bought and sold by the DNC backers and a different sort of cronyism. My opinion is that we need "Real Change" and the "Money Lenders" need to be driven from the temple. Oh yeah, I forgot we don't worship a god. Please!

I would like Senator Obama, to refuse the DNC corporate "filtered money". I think he would sweep the country and do it on the high ground. He WOULD OWE no one. How refreshing would that be?

I know, "I am just a dreamer, but I'm not the only one". "Imagine" that. FREEDOM!

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

Contrary to Hollands’ position, I believe Ralph Nadar in fact was a spoiler in 2004. I know that there were other very significant factors involved in Gore’s win/loss, but it certainly doesn’t strike me as a “ludicrous” that Nadar’s candidacy played a significant role in Bush’s taking the White House.

I also believe the stakes are too damn big to risk having the Republicans in charge again. Hopefully the Democrats will win by a landslide in 2008, but that’s not a given. The moral and fiscal consequences of the Republicans staying in charge are, I believe, horrendous. Nadar has zero chance of winning he presidency. Hopefully, the spoiler effects of his running will be negligible. But I’m reminded of a cartoon I was saw years ago that showed a person going door to door, taking a survey, and the person responding at one house is saying: “How do we know if no one can win a nuclear war unless we try one?” The stakes are too high. It’s not worth the risk. Given the razor thin margin in 2000, I believe it is reckless for Nadar to throw his hat in the ring at this point.

If he wants to make a statement, let him start a hunger strike. That will get attention. But the world will not suffer because of it.

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

In 2000 I voted for Nader, and I blame him for the 2000 election results, but I was living in Texas at the time and I swapped votes. My vote meant nothing even though Austin is in a blue county, the majority of the state is red except for the area near the Mexican border. I went to a website the hooked me up with someone in a swing state. I agreed to vote for Nader, he agreed to vote for Gore. This year I live in a potential swing state, so I am going to swap votes with a Nader supporter in a red state.

I think it is good to support a third party. But the reality is that our electoral system will work against progressives if people in swing states run out and vote for Nader. But if there is a grassroots movement to get a third party candidate tens of thousands of votes in red states, then they can qualify for federal funding.

Nader or any third party candidate needs to run for the Senate, not the presidency. One or two independents in the current Senate could have a larger impact on policy formation than any run for presidency. The Senate is so evenly divided that both parties will pander to any independents in the Senate to get legislation passed. This would by far be the quickest way to get the progressive agenda on the national scene.

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

Even if you discount Florida, where Mr. Nader pulled, if memory serves, over 90,000 votes -- many times more than enough to make the whole court procedure meaningless - something Nader has admitted in print (Crashing the Party); you have New Hampshire -- which alone could have delivered the Presidency to Mr. Gore in 2000 -- and where Mr. Nader's vote total also exceeded the difference between the candidates - and where despite the argument that his absence would not have changed the result -- I strongly suspect it would have. The difference in votes being just over 7000 and the number of Nader votes cast being 22,198.

Ralph Nader has a perfect right to run if he wishes -- however, those who voted for Nader (including some of my friends) were, as a result, responsible for Bush's victory -- whether we like it or not. Vice President Gore's unwillingness to risk civil war (we heard what he said on Tom Joyner -- even though we are not from a demographic one might expect to have in Joyner's audience), which is the realistic interpretation of why he did not challenge through marches and direct civil disobedience after the Supreme Court decision; which, frankly, as I told friends BEFORE the decision was made, was made with exactly the numbers I had predicted on both sides, and which would have been made with whatever wording was necessary to block whatever recount was asked for - because, not of facts, but because there were 7 Republicans on the court and 2 Democrats; was rational. There was, despite this author's personal view -- no way to avoid a Republican presidency when the numbers were such that they could be fudged on poll day -- and they were, unless the Democrat was willing to risk a real Constitutional crisis, and I submit to you that while Al Gore was not willing to take such a risk -- as an American, I consider that to be more of a strength than a weakness at the time. No one could predict how badly Mr. Bush would maul this country.

So Nader wants to run? Fine. However, let's all acknowledge the risks. The Right understands the risks, that's why Buchanan got so few votes in 04, and why ultimately, after all of Dobson's and others' rhetoric, the hard Right and Religious Right will fold in and support the Republican candidate this year, even if its John McCain. They understand exactly what third party candidacies offer -- and we need to understand as well.

Kind regards,

Reyn
radagast_23 at yahoo dot com

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

"At the heart of that animalistic urge is the notion that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election and was responsible for placing Shrub in the White House, a revisionist history that's as ludicrous as it is pervasive within Democratic circles. The reality -- the hard data point that makes it a perfectly specious narrative -- is that Al Gore, had he immediately and forcefully demanded a recount of all the votes in the state of Florida, would have won and would probably be finishing up his second term right now. It was his decision -- one that Nader had nothing to do with -- to contest only a handful of counties that would ultimately cost him the presidency (and the United States so much more than that)."



You are saying that Gore was the architect of his own demise. That is so much crap. Nader, & Nader alone, is responsible for having had Bush thrust upon the world. Nader is nothing more than an egotistical, obstructionist fool. Anyone with any polical savvy would have known that he would draw more votes away from the Dems than the Repigs.

Florida was at the nub of it all. Gore "lost" by 600/700 votes. Nader meanwhile drew away some 70,000 votes, most of which would undoubtedly have otherwise gone to Gore. In Nader's absence Gore would have won the election fair & square.

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

What planet do you people inhabit? The Democratic primaries included populists like Edwards and Kucinich. They lost. Get it. THEY LOST. THE ELECTORATE WANTS A UNITER LIKE OBAMA. THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE COUNTRY. EVEN DEMOCRATS IN THE U.S. ARE RELATIVELY CONSERVATIVE. IF YOU DO NOT FORM COALITIONS WITH OTHERS WHO DO NOT SHARE EVERY VALUE OF YOURS YOU WILL CONTINUE TO BE COMPLETELY MARGINALIZED. Nader is, at least partially, funded by the right. This is established fact. He may mean well, but in the final analysis his megalomania has allowed him to blindly function as a tool for Rove and Co. LIBERALS WAKE UP OR THERE WILL BE FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH POLICY IN THIS COUNTRY!

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

Those who truly believe in small "d" democracy, even when it's inconvenient, should support Nader's right to run.

High quality stuff, Joshua. I'd add the point that demeaning those who might vote third party is no way to get them on your side; in fact, it probably pushes them further away.

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

Horeshit, Josh. 'Bama or Hill will give us just as much sultry oppression as the junta we have now.

I'm so god damned sick and tired of dumbass 'Merkaans relying on a rigged system to save themselves from themselves. Y'all WANT this bullshit rig, y'all WANT to live fer Jeezis or your other damned stoopid delusions and y'all worship your god damned aristocracy. You're all sick, SICK SICK SICK SICK!

This country needs a god damned revolution and some guillotine justice for those responsible for creating it. Libruls and neocons have ruined and destroyed humanity and the soul of whatever nation-state they were trying to found. It's OVER people. Time for a slap in the face, WAKE UP! On second thought, go back to sleep, ya' bunch of rich overprivileged dipshits.

Earth is coming to rid herself of the cancer... YOU! The HOMELESS will inherit your dunghill.

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

It's pretty clear that Ralph Nader's campaign is more about Ralph Nader's ego than the good of the country. Anybody who's actually bothered to pay attention over the last 7 miserable years knows that there's at least 15 cents worth of difference between the two major parties; do you honestly think a President Gore would have nominated Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court? Do you believe we would be mired in Iraq or contemplating war with Iran, or that 9/11 would have even happened in the first place if there'd been a chief executive who bothered to pay attention? Do you think there would've been all this tax largesse for the ultra-wealthy under Gore? Do you think we'd be in the same situation as regards the national debt? What about our energy policy? Gore certainly would've tried to steer us (however incrementally) in a saner direction! What about all the civil liberties issues? Do you think Gore would be flauting the Constitution--not to mention the will of the people--with signing statements, definance and outright contempt?

If, after all this, Nader honestly believes things would be the same he's not mentally competent to serve as president. I am sick of his stuck-up pie-in-the-sky posturings, and very glad that he will be utterly irrelevant in the up-coming election.

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

No one can mathematically prove that Nader's 90,000 votes in Florida would have gone to Gore. But Ralph Nader has a delusion about a American voting public that does not exist. Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Or cut taxes for the rich. Or appointed morons who censor science on global warming. Nader did this country a staggering disservice.

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

These days, if your TV breaks, you don't fix it -- you throw it away and buy another. Ralph Nader seems to be taking the same approach to the Democratic party. Kind of ironic for the guy who sees himself as the superego of the American consumer, no?

In the meantime, Howard Dean is scaring the pants off the old Dem establishment by re-empowering the grass roots and the disaffected. Remember the Old Guard's response to the 2006 across-the-board Democratic sweep Dean engineered? They demanded that he be fired! To my mind, that's the real distinguisher between Hillary and Obama -- Mrs C still doesn't like or trust those grass roots.

Neither does ol' Ralph. There is no party-building between four-year elections, and is he involved in the effort to reclaim the Dem party? Nope. It's so much easier to show up at the eleventh hour every four years, complaining that the TV is broken and demanding that we buy a new one. This is a guy who has unlimited access to the Op-Ed pages because of his accomplishments in the 70's. Does he use it to get his alleged principles into the public discussion? Naw, that would be fixing the TV.

And that's the real gist of what's wrong with the perennial Nader candidacy -- he's a gadfly, not a politician. When urged to vote for him in 2000, I said, "Do you think he'd actually make a good President?" The urger said no. I've never met a Nader supporter who actually wants him in the White House -- they just want to make a point.

Well, the end of the cycle is not the time to make that point. If Nader were sincere in his beliefs, he and his supporters would have gotten seriously involved in Democratic party politics starting in January 2000, or would have started serious third-party party building right about that same time.

Check out a bio of Lincoln -- our political system does not make third parties impossible. The Republican party started out as a third party, and within a decade had gotten a President elected. But party-building is even more tedious and blue-collar than party repairing. Ralph says, throw it away and trust me to buy the next one. No, thanks!

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

Nader is just a bloated, egotistical fool that thinks he can make a difference in a system that just shows him to be the buffoon that he is. Does he think that America is going to back a President that has no concept of dental hygiene. It will not be a pretty picture on the worlds' stage when he smiles.
But really, he is so singular in his platform that he can never get elected. He is an idealogue that cares for changes that are unrealistic. Some will see him as a tool of the Repugnants. A spoiler. He will only solidify the Democrats to back either Obama or Clinton. He may be just what is needed to bring the party together.

Good night and good luck...

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

Go, Ralph, go. If the Democrats don't want a "spoiler" in the race then they're going to have to address some of the issues that you stand for and that we progressives consider to be important. Voting to defeat "the reactionaries" is acting out of fear--just what they would have us do. Why not vote for the person who supports the issues we support? It is weakness to act out of fear. The times require courage. Be bold; run on prinicple, Ralph, and thank you for daring to give our voices a platform.

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

In 2000, Nader appealed to college students and other young people who bought into the outrageously stupid assertion that Gore wasnt that different from Bush. Gore also got typecast as "Wooden Al the Exaggerator. Tee Hee." Young people are not going to oppose Barack Obama in 2008. Nader is not the hip candidate in this election -- Obama is. And if you have to rely on real leftists in a US election, you will not get 1 percent of the vote.

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

more qualified than any of the stumblebums that have thrown their hat into the ring thus far, at least he knows what is most worthwhile for the people of this country. The most imperative being to get the US to hell out of Iraq!

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

So Ralphipoo wants to run again. So what? He can run, or not. You can vote for him, or not. It's that simple. Nader doesn't have to provide a universally accepted reason for his candidacy any more than you or me. Oh, by the way, ANYONE, including you or I can do the same thing as Nader, with about the same chance of getting elected. There are some very important issues confronting us, and a third candidate is one of the LEAST. Somewhere in this article was a statement to the effect that the rethugs would retreat to their nest following a defeat at the polls. This is one issue of prime importance, one that should be given the highest priority. I don't think the neocrook bastards should be allowed to slither off, regroup, and wait for an opportune time to pounce again; I think they should be CRUSHED, following the election, either by Clinton or Obama. Fortunately, we have some great legal minds more than equal to this task in Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kerrey, and yes, Nader. Prosecuting the bushies is a MORAL obligation we have to ourselves and our descendents, one I hope is not shirked in favor of political expedience.

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

1. ADDRESS HIS ISSUES.

2. INSTITUTE "IRV" (INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING)

That's all they'd have to do - and they'd eliminate whatever "threat" he supposedly presents to their chances.

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

my last "extremely" comment was meant for Oslobodite, (whatever the hell that is)

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

Who died and put Nader in charge of democracy? I am so over this old white dude who thinks he can swoop in with a big white cape and save us. He is NOT the only one raising these issues. Edwards and Kucinich have contributed, Cynthia McKinney is contributing, where does Nader get the idea that if he doesn't give a bunch of Quixotic nitwits the opportunity to fall on a sword for "real choice" the country will not survive? The US govt is actively fighting against the idea of global warming, they have sunk the economy by deregulating everything and giving away the store to their war-profiteering friends at Halliwell, the polar bears are running out of ice, the salmon are dying, the EPA is run by polluters, the Labor Board by corporate bosses and the Supreme court is poised to take away reproductive rights. Now is not the time to shake our superior, self righteous fingers at the democratic party. And for all you nimrods who proclaim you will vote for this tired old 60's policy wonk who thinks he's a rock star...I'll bet not one of you has done anything to try to change or influence the Democratic Party...except whine with your friends about how much more progressive you are than demos...it's so much easier to wait for Ralph every 4 years so you can feel superior....

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

Ralph Nader isn't fooling anyone with his declaration of candidacy for the White House. He's out to screw the Democrats yet again.

But there is a way to stop him dead in his tracks. Make his age an issue in the campaign.

Nader turns 74 this week -- which makes him three years older than John McCain. While it's pretty clear that Nader's amazingly fit physically for his age, I seriously am beginning to wonder if he's beginning to show sings of Alzheimer's.

How else can you explain his reasoning to run again? It's the same reasoning he's employed in 1996, 2000 and 2004 (which, by the way, makes Nader a three-time loser). And it's a reasoning that most Americans simply don't buy.

To a degree, Ralph Nader has become this generation's Alf Landon, who ran three times against Franklin D. Roosevelt -- and lost each time.

And three-time losers NEVER win.

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

To me, it is insane to have only 2 parties. Yes/No Black/White Stop/Go
Just too simplistic.

MY wish to be finally rid of this war-criminal-group, is not Mr Nader's point. Apples vs Oranges.. No matter when a third-party attempted to join-in, there will be objections.

Mr Nader is here NOW. He will not always be with us. I say, THANK YOU Mr Nader! I still need all of your help that I can get.

You GO boy!

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

I voted for him. twice.
Did my vote belong to the democratic party before I pulled the lever for Ralph Nader? HELL NO.

I'd have voted for the next best candidate, not necessarily a dem.

It's offensive and ignorant to be accused by democrats that somehow my vote, belonged to them, and I "threw it away" on a 3rd party candidate. The only people throwing their vote away are people not voting. To accuse other voters of "throwing away" their vote is condescending because it implies you know whats best for them and they're not capable of making an informed choice. Precisely the kind of attitude I dont want in the white house.

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

I tried to read thru all the posts; I really did. I've just got too much work to do (making Kool Aid for my boomer friends still not on the train).

You hit on all of the important pieces concerning the mess of 2000: Gore's lawyers, Ralph pushing Gore left winning Gore votes, butterfly Jewish NY'ers for Nazi, Ms Harris & the anybody named Brown, Black, or White purged as criminals, the truth that Gore won FL,... All of this needs to be said.

As we worked Green in '00, in a safe, safe, state of Maryland, we did so in order to build a progressive base --- we saw that the DLC had cut us off at the knees & the only way to get people interested was to organize outside of the Democratic party.

But much has changed since. The Greens did not pick Ralph in '04 & will likely not pick him this time. Many of the local Greens here registered Democrat in '06 to have a voice in local elections. This time, we have an insurgent candidate for President which is bringing many new people out as foot soldiers. We need to encourage them w/ a clear program. Our Green candidate for Congress is weak & won't get my vote, even though I voted against my rep on the 12th in the Democratic primary (because he wouldn't sign the Iran res).

I'm almost sorry I signed onto draft Nader; I did so when it looked like HRC had it wrapped up. I saw then that a Nader campaign in the Green party could organize our local base & push her left on the issues. Much has happened since. Obama has given us an organizing base to finally take over the Democratic party. I used to think the New Party people were crazy for working inside. Not anymore. Thruout our state, they were among the leadership of the Obama campaign and many hold elected office. As I live in a one party state, the only way forward is to build from this progressive base & to replace the old school demos from inside. I'm 45 1/2 & still learning.

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

The article in part has just changed what motivates fear.. in this case a supreme court that will do you in... no tks, i do not buy it. nor do i buy any tactic designed to influence my vote by "what woulda coulda been" or "will be" if i vote OTHER THAN FOR THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB. NADER IS THAT MAN. It would be great if one simply looked at the facts, that the distinctions between democratic party and the republican party though of some note.. has already sense the 06 elections PROVED TO BE NEGLIGIBLE. NO IMPEACHMENT, ONGOING WAR . THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. It is time to vote your conscious versus sell your soul our of fear. GO NADER

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

it seems like if he gets on in ohio or florida it would matter more.

meet the press interview: nader also talked about how he might have gotten gore more votes by pulling him to the left a tad. not sure about that but interesting point.

someone have already said or these things but i just skimmed the article and the comments

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

Fuck yeah - we NEED someone even OLDER than McCain to run, LOL!

jdfu!

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

I disagree.
Florida vote counting was chaotic. Obviously not all Nader voters would have voted for Gore-some would have stayed home or blanked that line BUT Gore would have probably had a big enough margin to withstand K Harris & the Renquist Supreme Court.
Instead 4000 dead Americans in IRAQ, how many dead Iraqi citizens. The economy in a mess.
Nixon was better. Nader is simply caught up in his own ego

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

Sadly, Ralph Nader, a good, almost great man, will be cursed by history as the guy most responsible for the Bush Blight that infects our once great nation. How different things would be today if Ralph had stayed out of the 2000 campaign.

Another issue: Since Corporate America has made patriotism obsolete, why don't we outsource our government. I'm sure we could find lower waged politicians elsewhere who wouldn't over-earmark our budgets. Instead of running this year, Ralph, help fix our government from the outside.

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

After reading your article, i happen to agree with some of your points.Ralph does have some interesting ideas, BUT, where has he been for the last 4 years?. Was he keeping them a secret till now. I havent read one article about good old Ralph, or have seen him on tv.But, i did read the Bio. of the Nader crime family. You would be amazed at what his family and Ralph have been up to in the last 25 years.He makes Bush look like a boyscout.If your not bright enough to understand that not only is Ralph very bright, but he knows exactly what he is doing, and if you REALLY believe he doesnt want to screw up the Dems. in Nov., your not very bright either.

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

Consumers have mush to be grateful for. Nader made many changes that no one else had the guts to even try. But He has get out of the way and stop behaving like a spoiled child at someone else's birthday party. Ralph, this ain't about you. Better men than you are no longer in the race. Take a walk. Anna

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

Look, I think 90% of what RN stands for is great.
But to say that he did not cause the loss of Florida just because there were myriad other problems is ridiculous.
It is undisputed that had just 60% of those Floridians that voted RN had voted AG, then NONE of the other reasons would have mattered? There would have been no need for a recount.
I love RN, old foggy that he is. (i am 73). But he cannot help but hurt the Democrats (me). And for what he was instrumental in causing our country over the last 7 years I will never forgive him. I am joining his campaign in order to tell anyone that will listen NOT to vote for RN. God Help us if another REpublican administration takes the white house, no matter who has the legislature.
(GWB ignores congress anyway)

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

Only if the "Clintonians" rip the nomination from Obama might enough voters swing to a third party to make any difference in this election. Hilary and Bill might succeed in stealing the nomination by way of "super delegates" and the re-seating the delegates from the 2 "rouge" states Hilary won by a fluke. It wouldn't surprise any progressive to see the our favorite WMD’s (Willingly-undemocratic Mainstream Democrats) change the rules to suit themselves. They showed their willingness to do this in changing the rules to enter the early Democratic Debates and succeeded in squelching the voices of all the progressives in the party.
Mrs. "C" getting the nod over the "peoples choice" could spark a backlash that could hurt MAINSTEAM "machine" Dems. It could serve to shed enough light down the filthy rat-hole that is today's American political cesspool. Enough light could allow many Americans to see how it really doesn't matter, in the long run, which candidate selected for them by BIGMEDIA winds up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Each of the current crop of presidential hopefuls has taken enough corporate money to show his and her willingness to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom with a host of BIG MONEY lobbyists.
Mainstream Republicans AND Mainstream Democrats move closer daily, in spirt and in action to a one party plutocracy.
WE the PEOPLE, if properly motivated, could swell up and smack the lot of them in the face with a solid, if not winning, showing by a third party presidential hopeful. TEDDY ROOSEVELT took the "Bull MOOSE Party to a win about a hundred years ago. Nothing is impossible. Such a show of force by WE THE PEOPLE would not go unnoticed by our party’s leaders.
I intend to bolt and vote for a third party candidate, but only for the oval office. I will vote straight Democratic when it comes to voting for members of Congress who will vote to pass and repeal laws.
Remember, your Congressman have the power to CONFIRM or REJECT those NOMINEES submitted by the President for the Supreme Court and other positions that will affect you lives for years to come.Congress is accountable to a more manageable number of voters. If we could get fifteen more "BERNIE SANDERS" and "CHRIS DODD’S" and fifty more "DENNIS KUCINICH'ES" we would have a hell of a shot at turning the tide in the future of WE THE PEOPLE, America’s Middle Class.

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

In the article, Run Ralph Run, the logic of recognizing Ralph Naders achievements but not voting for him seems reasonable until you examine the rhetoric and actions of the Democratic Party, of the two candidates they and the media brought to the voters, the state of our nation and the voters expectation for change. I note that it was democrats, including one Presidential candidate, who voted to support George Bushs preemptive war in quest of non-existent WMDs (or as Fed chairman Greenspan candidly stated, his quest for OIL); two Judiciary Committee democrats who allowed the confirmation of Michael Murkesy as AG (a supporter of water boarding for others but not himself, who does not know if it constitutes torture and who refuses to issue congressional subpoenas); democratic leaders who took impeachment off the table with no investigation of apparent violations of the constitution and the law; democrats who supported NAFTA and the export of American jobs and our manufacturing base; democrats who voted for the banking rules that have produced a second banking scandal, this time in the mortgage industry, that many are calling sub prime crime; Democratic Parties in two states that assisted in removing the only progressive candidate left in the race (Dennis Kucinich) from the debates while the primaries had only begun; we know about Republicans stealing or manipulating votes and now in NY the city’s mayor characterizes Primary voting in which Senator Obama’s votes disappear, as fraud. In the interest of brevity I stop here in describing the republican like behavior the democrats. Now its clear that both parties have ignored the warning of our outgoing President, Dwight Eisenhower, against the power and influence of the military-industrial complex. It’s also clear that major changes in the shift of power from the few to the many were the result of third party actions. It seems that most people support the positions that Ralph Nader enumerates on his web site VoteNader.org . So I wonder who is hurting the Democratic Party, voters who support the candidate that represents their views or the Party that ignores its progressive wing. I think this was made clear when Senator Obama casually brushed off the possibility of working with Mr. Nader. I think the Party would rather continue business as usual, under the umbrella of the rhetoric of change, than to support the change that Nader and most Americans support.Ralph Nader has a record of more positive change than either Democrat running for the office of President. If the democrats want my vote they will have to start reprsenting me and that's my advice to all Democrats and Independents. So far Ralph is the choice.

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

The basic arguement behind people not liking Nader running takes for granted that our democracy has already failed.

Is that clear?

Okay, so if that's where we are today, shouldn't that plainly present itself as a bigger question to be addressed than how we should be working within that failed framework to get a leader who is the lesser of two evils?

Come on people, if you really feel this way about Nader, please take a step back and realize what you are taking for granted is a monsterously larger and more troubling problem than whether or not we have a Repub or Dem in office.

Instead of talking about Nader as a spoiler and how it's too terrible to see another Repub administration so we must vote Dem...you should really be talking about organizing and holding another Constitutional Convention and starting over, because if that's where we are (and I'm not arguing that's not the case) we have bigger problems than four more years of Bush policy with McCain in charge...

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

Consider this: half of the eligible voters don't bother to participate. Of those who do show up, it seems like most of them vote based on blind party allegiance or to spite the other party. The Democrats have become the party of spite. Maybe if they showed some leadership or courage (on Iraq, for example) they would inspire the non-voting population to start caring. At least Obama is trying to spark some inspiration, but he has been lacking substance.

The point is, I'm not going to be bullied or blackmailed into voting for the Dem just because the Repub wants to keep us in Iraq for a hundred years. I'm voting for the candidate who demonstrates a commitment to progressive values. If that means that McCain wins, you can blame it on the 50% of eligible voters who didn't show up.

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

I disagree wholeheartedly with the premise and arguments in this article. What it fails to adequately address is that the stealing of the 2000 election was a numbers game: purging and preventing as many of the democrats' votes as possible, to create the smallest margin as possible, which ultimately allowed the election to be stolen. Yes, Al Gore made many mistakes, but so did the people who fell for Ralph's CRAP and voted for him instead of Gore. What has Ralph done to improve anything about our political problems? Nothing. Al got the Nobel Peace Prize; we got DUB. Where did Ralph go? Nowhere. This is not about anybody owing anybody else their vote. This is about common sense.

Hilary and Barack do not define the democratic agenda. What about Kucinich? He's 10 times as progressive as Ralph and he is (was?) in a position to do something about our political problems (rather then just campaign on them). The media, including Alternet, blocked him and his message out. Even this article fails to acknowledge him.

One more thing. Given that Kucinich was silenced by the corporate-dominated media because he posed a real threat to their monopolistic domination of the political process, why do you think they promote Ralph? The answer is that they must think (and probably rightly so) that Ralph ultimately benefits them because he siphons some of the progressive vote off the democratic total, closing the margin, and perhaps even helping them stay in power. Don't be fooled by Ralph again! He's not our ally. He really is a spoiler.

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

Personally every blog, site, column etc that publishes the voice of the people, has shown a huge disparity between Pro-Ralph running and those that support him on philosophical grounds.
Almost every one i have read like RN. But only a tiny percentage approve of his candidacy.
I hope he reads.

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

I admit it. Proudly.

I voted for Nader in 2000. That was a vote of conscience, and isn't that what we are supposed to do?

Since Gore WON the popular vote and my state went to Gore (as did the Popular vote), MY vote for Nader made no difference in the outcome. My conscience is very clean. Anyone who says it would've changed anything is deluding themselves and not addressing the REAL issue: a stolen election by the right wing nutjobs. THAT would've happened with or without Ralph. Furthermore, Gore and the Dems' lack of entitled follow-through was equally responsible.

The following election was different. I was 'forced' (for the first time) into voting for someone that I didn't believe in. Usually I would've abstained and not voted, but there was a much higher call to STOP the Bu$hCo madness with a vote with a real chance - hence a vote for Kerry. Nader didn't stand a chance and had to wait.

This time, however, Nader's entry into the race is moot. It's too little and way too late. As far as a REAL change is concerned, Kucinich and Edwards were both already forced out of the race. Nader might have had the same base, but it means nothing in this election since America has already passed on that base. MARK MY WORDS: Nader will get his lowest numbers EVER, and this entry into the race will mean nothing!

Maybe Joshua is right - it's all about Ralph's ego. I can't think of too many other reasons why he'd run this time since the issues were competently covered by Kucinich and Edwards, and they were dismissed. Ralph will say little that we haven't already heard recently.

THIS time, Nader is a firm non-issue.

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

With Nader's platform in stark contrast to Obama's and Clinton's on many issues; with Edward's and Richardson's platforms basically in sync with Nader's and Obama and Clinton sort of courting them; with all that, maybe the Democrat frontrunners will have to take in those more liberal planks than they seem willing to do at the moment. Or be forced to provide the details, only sketchily drawn now, regarding how they actually would accomplish what they promise. Or make more empty promises than they do now.

But my cynical side keeps nagging me saying, "Nah! All candidates say what they think the electorate wants to hear just so they can get elected. But they have little or no intention of actually making that pie-in-the-sky crap happen once elected." But maybe, just maybe, Nader won't have to do that. I lean toward thinking Nader does intend to do the things he says he will, or at least he'll try to do so; but maybe it's just wishful thinking.

I also wonder what a Democrat Congress would do to or for him if he did win the Presidency: Be spiteful and block him or be thankful and support him?

What I hope happens is that he won't have to waste a lot of campaign time and money in the way Obama and Clinton are doing: Telling the electorate over and over what's wrong with their opponent. Nader, if he will, can just keep refining his platform, telling us in more and more detail how he would accomplish all the good things he says he'll do. Wouldn't that be refreshing? Mightn't that win him the presidency? Would that be a good thing? "Better than Bush" is not much of a presidential criteria given the cesspool Bush has put us in and out of which the next president will have to extract us.

As for the age issue, I'd like to know how he'd do in a free-for-all debate. Is his mind still young and functioning on all cylinders? That'd be the only criteria re. the age issue. At least for me.

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

As Mr. Holland has stated, Nader will have a positive influence on political discourse -- and by positive I don't mean the sedative like state Dems enter into upon hearing the warm sunshiny hymnals to hopefulness and a bright new tomorrow of Obama.

Nader is a buzz kill to those of you who so desperately want to believe in centrist corporate Democrats and are intoxicated by the delusion inducing media. You want to believe in the crafted public images and fanciful, largely phony, and empty rhetoric of Democratic Party Presidential candidates. And there Nader is again, ready to crash the party.

Democracy can be a bitch can't it? LOL. To all of you that believe action should be taken to prevent Nader from being on ballots, please leave the country. Go form a Banana republic somewhere. Please quit trying to shut out one of the only real and principled political figures that represents at a national level progressive values.

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

i should state at the outset that i voted for Cynthia McKinney in the WA Green Party Primary, and will not vote for either Barack or Hillary.

But all of this is missing the point: it's not about WHO runs, but about HOW ORGANIZED, CRITICAL are we as a people going to be when WHOEVER gets elected.

it DOESN'T MATTER if it's Barack or Hillary, or McCain for that matter, unless 'we the people' are organized, critical and active enough to push our demands.

The corporations do not rest or sleep, but if we are disorganized, divided etc., they will ram their whole agenda down our collective throats no matter who is president. Remember NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.

Furthermore, we need alternative institutions that we are willing to support - and will work as a network for us - and the Green Party could be one of them.

So, the issue of Nader is secondary - even though i agree with another person when they say that Nader has not done anything to 'grow' the green party, and so i would rather NOT see him run, because he interferes with party-building.

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

Josh, next time can you just leave Ralph Nader out of your argument and point out the most important ideas in your essay?

1) Any Democratic president will make better appointments to the Supreme Court than any Republican. I thought control of the Supreme Court was the most important issue in the last election, and it's even more important this time.

2) Any Democratic president will make better appointments overall than any conservative Republican president who believes in minimal government. Astonishingly, I did not realize how appalling ALL of Bush's appointments were until Hurricane Katrina. No Democratic president could possibly do so badly, so this is the second most important issue in this election.

Apparently, virtually all of your commentators missed these absolutely vital points, getting all hung up in Nader, third parties, and the general evilness of Clinton and Obama. No matter how bad they look, a total right wing Supreme Court and bad general appointments look much worse, so I will hold my nose and vote for the Democratic nominee. But it's not just in my self interest, it's in the country's best interest based on what's realistically available to us.

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

Ralph may have given us a lemon, so it behooves us to see whether there is some way we can turn this lemon into lemonade.

Our 18th century system of elections was never designed to accommodate political parties and it can fail quite spectacularly when there are more than two parties competing for a single office. More modern electoral approaches like instant run-off voting, proportional voting and the parliamentary system are better equipped to reach a reasonable outcome while permitting multi-party elections, and we can hope some day to move to one of these better electoral systems.

However, today we have what we have and a serious third-party run introduces the unfortunate hazard of the spoiler effect in which the two most-similar candidates split their combined vote and the candidate who is the last choice of the majority wins the election. While there may be a debate whether Ralph actually was a spoiler in the 2000 election, there can be little argument whether the spoiler effect is possible and whether it is something to worry about.

Those of us who fear another Republican Administration beginning in 2009 are justifiably worried about the entrance of a candidate on the left. However, another effect of this will be to pull the Democratic candidate to the left and push that candidate to take more populist positions, and that would be a good thing. It is a dangerous balancing act, however.

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

That way the driver will be safe, but another suicidal Quixotic moron focused selfishly on destroying what little is left of his formerly great legacy leaves the human race one I.Q. point collectively smarter.

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

I'll vote for whatever Democrat wins its party's nomination.

For me, this is a hard vote to swallow.

In 2000 I wrote in Nadar.
In 2004 I wrote in Kucinich.

(Being from the red state of Idaho, I figured that one less vote for the Democratic candidate on the ballot would make no difference. So vote your conscience.)

For 2008 I argued for Kucinich.

But you argue:
"it is in the self-interest of liberals, moderates and even those few remaining "principled conservatives" out there to defeat the reactionaries who have controlled the GOP for the past couple of decades."

OK. You're right.

Notwithstanding the fact that I feel that the whole debate/caucus/primary process has been rigged to float the two front-tier candidates to the top.

It has been shameful the way the commercial networks
(NBC/ABC/Des Moines Register/New Hampshire Guardian) eliminated Kucinich from the debates.
And it is just as shameful to ignore or scorn Nadar in his attempt to shape the debates and election with democratic, anti-corporate principles.

Nice article Josh.

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

Ralph will put the flame to the heat on this election..

For those of us the intelligent ones who supported Edwards and Kucinich Ralph Nader running this time is great..!

I didn't vote for him ever previously voted for Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004 but I fully support his candidacy and hope many others do..

Obama is getting a free ride and Hillary well she's Hillary my Senator and she's not exactly done anything for us here in bucolic nearly indigent upstate New York so we'll leave it at that..

Anyway Ralph and I share birthdays February 27th and Johnny cash was born the 26th of February and my Mom was in labor something like 13 hours or more and reminded me of that every time she was displeased with me..still does..!

Anyway we Pisces make the best Presidents and leaders and poet warriors natural malcontents and thinkers so just vote for him and let's shake the system up at its core it's long over due..!

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

You have been warned. Why? Because Nader has consistently been the MOST FEMINIST of anyone of these candidates COMBINED!! QUIT YOUR BITCHIN', FOCUS ON THE ISSUES, AND MAY THE BEST CANDIDATE WIN IN NOVEMBER - A CANDIDATE WHO WILL TRULY REPRESENT AND STAND UP FOR YOUR LIVELIHOODS OF GETTING INVOLVED IN YOUR COMMUNITIES INSTEAD OF STARING AT SCREENS ALL DAY LONG!!!

OUR CULTURE IS IN SHAMBLES. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE OUR NEWS MEDIA SATURATED IN BRITNEY DRECK WHEN THE TRULY TALENTED ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE A BUCK AND LIVE OFF OF THE BUCK.

JUNO IS A BRILLIANT FILM AND I AM SO GLAD DIABLO CODY WON HER OSCAR LAST NIGHT AND TOLD A MILLIONAIRE SHOE MAKER TO STICK IT WHERE IT COUNTS. AT LEAST THE CONCEPT OF CHOICE IS PRESENTED IN JUNO. CHOOSING TO HAVE A CHILD IS A CHOICE TOO, AND THE PRO-CHOICE ACTIVISTS SEEM TO FORGET THAT. YES, BE PRO ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL, BUT REMEMBER, BEING PRO CHOICE IS PRO-CHILD, TOO.

TINA FEY NEEDS TO GET OVER HERSELF. HOW DARE SHE ENDORSE HILLARY WHEN HER CORE FAN BASE IS FOR OBAMA.

CORPORATE GREED AND FEMINISM DO NOT MIX. MORE POWER TO LESS CONSUMERISM. SPEND YOUR DOLLARS MAKING THE MOVEMENT AS STRONG AS IT MUST BE AGAIN. INDEPENDENT VOICES AND ART ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CORPORATION.

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

Are you a member of the CFR or what? This election is turning out to be a textbook CFR campaign. Obama looks like a white knight compared to those other 2 "choices" but he isnt going to change anything. All he's going to do is, at the very most, further erode the constitution and the economy. There is no money for socialism. There is no money for more entitlements. People are too lazy and stupid to be entitled to anything more than a tissue to wipe the tears off their faces when they find out they pissed away their country.

LEARN ABOUT THE CFR. LEARN WHAT IS DESTROYING YOUR COUNTRY...

We need a third party now more than ever. But what we need even more is a SECOND party.

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

Obama

Goldman Sachs $421,763
Lehman Bros. $250,630
JP Morgan $243,843
Citigroup $221,578


Clinton

Goldman Sacs $471,750
Morgan Stanley $413,361
Citigroup $350,895
JP Morgan $214,880

Based on the above, wouldn't you say they are kind of "neck and neck" in the money raising dept.? It sure is good, isn't it, to know how much more "experience" they both probably have then Nader.

But, for all you Clinton and Obama supporters, I can afford to give each of them (Clnton and Obama) $20 or so. I am sure glad they will represent me just as well as they would represent Goldman Sachs or Citigroup, don't you think?

Bottom line, Obama and Hillary are both whores, and expensive ones at that. How can anyone honestly believe they will represent the common woman or the common man. Not even a chance.

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

Now I won't have to stifle the urge to vomit while I vote for the least worst candidate. If everyone who agreed with Ralph Nader actually voted for him, he would win the election.

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

Very few Democratic office holders view anything Bush has done as illegal. If that weren't the case, Bush would have been impeached long ago. Neither Clinton nor Obama supports the idea of prosecuting Bush regime officials for their many crimes committed in broad daylight, not to mention the many they try to conceal. If Clinton is the nominee, there is no reason to believe that she will seek to end the policies which she so slavishly supported. It should be noted that the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign are being run by the same corporation, and that those campaigns seem to be coordinated for the purpose of excluding anyone but the most pro-corporate candidates from possibly being elected. Bill Clinton's presidency was indeed a "bridge to the 21st century", and exactly in the sense he intended. It was a bridge from the execrable crypto-fascist Reagan/BushI years to the obscene neo-fascist Bush II years. Bill Clinton put W in the White House with all of his father's schemes still pending and with the radical and destructive Republican policies of the eighties given an undeserved sheen of legitimacy. The late Clinton years were marked by a number of radically rightist initiatives that even that whore Reagan would have blushed at, such as privatization of Social Security. It is astonishing that ANYONE would even consider for a second supporting the candidacy of ANYONE who voted for the Iraq war, either initially or after the invasion. It would be far better for this country if W just put a crown on his head and called himself dictator-for-life. At least then the American people would recognize and take up the bloody task at hand. Only Nader, among those still running, is willing to even consider SPEAKING THE TRUTH. All the rest are merely arguing back and forth over whose lie is more convincing.

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

I thought I'd read all the comments and reply to a few before posting my own, but wow .... this has generated so much response, I can't begin to find time (but I'll come back & read more). That's the good.

The bad is the idea that no matter what the Democrat's failings, they are anywhere remotely as dangerous as any Republican candidate, much less that mad man McCain.

The naive is the belief that we can afford to vote for a third party candidate at this juncture in our country's history, when we're already more than half way down the road to fascism.

You don't have to believe that Nader was "responsible" for Gore's so-called defeat in 2000, to believe that he could be a very dangerous influence in the campaign, this time around.
If, for every voter who supports having Nader's voice heard during this campaign as a tool for holding the democratic candidates feet to the fire on genuinely liberal issues, then voting for a viable (democratic) candidate when the time comes, there is another voter so naive as to believe that an actual vote for a third party candidate .... even a write in .... isn't the same as a vote for McCain, it could very well put McCain over the top.

As for Nader himself, I was once an admirer, but I now believe he's let his ego take over his reason.
My real hope is that this will tip the scales for John Edwards and he will steal this debate's thunder by endorsing Obama. And he needs a promise to be appointed Secretary of State, not Attorney General.
Anyone who watched The West Wing knows who in the administration really has the president's ear, and whom you have to go through to get to the president ;-)

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

Why are conservatives so evil, and liberals so freakin' stupid? This man, regardless of his good works, should be stopped. Now. Who gives a monkey's nut whether the Dems are getting contributions from corporations? Do you people not see what's happening? One more loss to these crazy Republicans and you can pretty much kiss America goodbye, and say hello to Amerika. You want that, Ralphie? I think maybe you do.

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

We've spent the entire Bush presidency crying about Democrats capitulating on every single issue of importance. Now that Nader's in the race, we've all rediscovered the value of compromise, pragmatism, and bipartisanship.

I'm voting for Ralph Nader, and it's going to feel great. My vote doesn't matter, anyway, and I'm looking forward to using it in a way that doesn't endorse a party that's going to sell out everything I believe in.

Barack Obama is not the second coming of Jesus. If he turns out to be decent, I'll vote for his re-election, but not until then.

[« 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 bunch 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]

For the last fucking time...

WE DID NOT GIVE YOU GOERGE BUSH.

y'all got him on your own by:

Not challenging the vote fraud

Not working hard enough to get your "liberal" corporate whores elected

supporting the aforementioned liberal corporate whores during their rule and letting them get away with the already mentioned laundry list of Republican economic and foreign policy objectives.



when will you get it through your thick skulls that those of us who make up the core of support for radical left third parties would not and will not vote for (out of deeply held beliefs and principles) your corporate whore candidates from the other wing of the ruling classes' duopoly.

get a life, stop whining about Nader, get off the couch and make some real change happen.

Have any of y'all offered evidence of the Democrat's integrity and ability to get things done? No. All y'all hate Bush but has your party had the strength of will to impeach his criminal ass in the last two years? hell no, according to your leaders that is "off the table".

So maybe y'all are the ones that need to grow up and take on some accountability for the actions of your Party and the destruction it has wrought instead of blaming the folks who have been working to counter the ongoing atrocities of late stage disaster capitalism and its apologist lackeys - the Democrats.

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

Mr. Holland,
great piece! thanks for treating the subject with the critical thinking it deserves. This is the very first piece I remember reading since 2000 that was by someone who wasn't going to vote for Ralph Nader but can make a reasonable arguement around the facts and issues surrounding his campaigns.

Sorry about the rude comments above and havin' to bring a bunch of hate and vitriol to the big pile of the same that your piece attracted, but when in Rome...

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

As relates to Nader and the Dem faithful a certain thought has been stirring in the recesses of my brain regarding how certain political apparatuses (apparati?LOL) are capable of manipulating people to vote against their interests.

What's particularly interesting here is that the Dem loyalists know full well the story of how it is that the Repub machine gets folks to do just this but somehow those Dem faithful deem themselves immune to this possibility.

Now let's look at this.

Just a cursory examination of what Nader proposes is in fact more closely allied with the vast majority of what the Dem supporters advocate for than the type of proposals put forth by Obama-Clinton et al. If you just ask them to vote on these proposals they would by a large margin vote for what Ralph advocates. And yet...

Pretty amazing isn't it?

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

*
*
It's time to ask Mr. Nader how long he's been on the GOP payroll.

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

COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!

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

I think that Ralph Nader's true character came out in his personal attacts of Michael Moore, simply because he was jealous of Moore's success. Yes, Nader had done some good things. But "what have you done for me lately" is the way the world works. One crusades because one believes in the cause. If one excepts a lifetime of kudos one is simply a fool!

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

I am for Nader, because he has the words the democrat nominees are afraid to say or discuss.

I was very sad I have to choose between Obama and Clinton that is to say... Establishment ! Change?? Hope?? for who?? Iraquis?? New Orleans?? inmigrants?? middle easterns??
What the Democrats have done in the last two years for them, for us??
It seems for the Democrats is never a good time for any other leftist candidate to run, isn't it??
It wasnt a good time when Gore, who admitted his defeat with the law and voters behind him, It wasn't a good time when Kerry, and Is not a good time now??
Is this the left America deserves??
C'mon !!!

We all should congratulate ourselves that guys like Nader take action...Nothing more American than Nader running for president.

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

I want to vote for Cynthia Mckinney. If Ron Paul doesn't run the whole way. I will only vote for president someone that will denounce the War on Drugs for the national raciest, classiest, tragicomedy that it is. Shame on the main party candidates for supporting this insane prohibition at the cost of millions of lives.

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

As far as I'm concerned, Ralph Nader will be such a non-issue in the upcoming election, people will wonder why he even bothered. Maybe he's doing it out of habit. Maybe he just enjoys being a gadfly. Maybe he is in somebody's hip pocket to make sure the other guy doesn't get elected.

The ultimate reason doesn't matter...and neither does Nader. I will always be grateful for his tireless work in consumer safety that led to standardized seat belts which helped me and my sister survive two seperate car accidents several years ago. But even moreso than John McCain, he belongs to the last century. After 9/11, the Patriot Act, black site prisons in Eastern Europe, Gitmo, and the ever-sinking quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, where's the relevance?

The world has moved on, away from the myth of America the benevelont and omnipotent superpower. Nader just doesn't belong on the poltical landscape anymore.

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

Ralph had the chance to change American politics in 2000. He could have made a deal with Gore to have a strong say in a Gore administration in Labor or Interior or EPA, HEW or judiciary appointments. This is the successful strategy that has been employed in other countries that has given Greens a real voice in government.

Instead, Ralph grandstanded, like the pathetic egomaniac he has degenerated into, from a man who was a hero to many of us. And for him to sneer and say he didn't cause Gore to lose, that maybe Gore caused him to lose, only underlines his cynicism and egomaniacal nature.

Since Bush won, we have had dozens of Federal judgeships that are lifetime, going to the most conservative of people. We have had environmental degradation, some of which is irreparable. And we have thousands of lost US lives and hundreds of thousands of lost Iraqi lives in a futile and misguided war that is now an occupation.

These are but a few of the tragedies we have lived with that could have been mostly avoided. All it would have taken is Ralph to get pragmatic and make progress, rather than hold out for everything. Pride goeth before a fall, and Ralph's pride fell us all.

Yes, he has the right to run. But what a buffoon he is. Does he want more of the same insanity? What could he possibly be thinking besides self-aggrandizement?

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

I'm sorry, but if someone is engaging in specious discourse, it's not the Nader Haters.

If I remember the Florida State Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount in 2000, which was overturned by a Supreme Court majority that on any other day would have been preaching the merits of judicial restraint.

And then there was the disenfranchisement of thousands of likely democratic voters by Brother Jeb, Campaign Co-Manager Katherine Harris and Bucky Mitchell leading up to the election. Gore's tragic tactical error wouldn't have mattered had they not been successful, or had even one mainstream media outlet had the cojones to cover Greg Palast's expose.

Maybe you win on a technicality, but if I were Nader, and I thought my candidacy had tipped the election to the White House from hell, I'm not sure I could show my face in public, much less pretend I was somehow the missing link to the establishment of a viable third party.

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

There is no difference between the two ruling parties. Look at their records. I don' think you did your homework.

I am however disappointed in Ralph Nader because he never shows his head until election time. What has he been doing meanwhile? Is he blacked out by the corporate media? I think we should let McCain win and just blow the whole place up and get it over with. Clinton and Obama offer only a slower death.

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

I'm happy to have Nader involved again. If
nothing else, he asks the important questions,
brings up critical issues and is not afraid
to step on the established powers who are
running this Pres. show. Go gettem Ralph.

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

Vote Nader. But be warned Obama or Clinton or Macain or some other ass will spoil it for you just so the number of uninsured will increase by another 20 percent and your best friend will die in Afghanistan or Iran, and you will contract terminal disease by eating Frankenfoods. No sweat. Even Nader cannot stop gas prices going to $10 a gallon by 2012.

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

These other clowns are waiting for a national disaster to point their fingers at the other party.

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

I posted an angry comment to this article yesterday but it was pulled. I've cooled down now.

The argument that Nader didn't spoil the 2000 election is wrong. Of course the Supreme Court decision threw a few hundred votes to Bush, as did the disenfranchisement of African-Americans, as did the double votes in the military - but all of that would have been in vain if Nader hadn't been a candidate. And the world would have been a very different and much better place.

I see a lot of posts griping about how the Dems are as bad as the Republicans. That's what really made me angry because it's the same reasoning I heard and read in 2000. That Gore wasn't progressive enough. So he wasn't - but he was still a lot better than Bush.

Nader in 2000 spent most of his time attacking Gore and was actually very kind to Bush. That seems to be forgotten and forgiven. But the negative consequences of that cynicism are still with us and will be, perhaps forever.

In 2004 the Green Party was to a large extent financed by Republicans. Guess why.

Here's why. The US system is a two-party system and always will be. The Constitution lets the states organize federal elections the way they want. States want maximum influence, and so adopt winner-take-all rules (a state like Vermont which splits its delegates, has no real say in the presidential election). Winner-take-all rules mean a two-party system. This can only change if the Constitution is changed to empower the federal government to organize its own elections. And that's not going to happen because it's not in the interest of the two parties who divide up the cake between them today.

The choice in 2000 was between Gore and Bush. Those who threw away their vote may find excuses for that today, but I don't think there was or is an excuse. Bush hadn't yet said he was going to start wars, but his environmental viewpoints were well-known. Voting Bush or Nader (at least in swing states), or in any other way not voting Gore, was to take responsibility for the biggest environmental catastrophe in history - the Bush administration.

And in 2008 it is no different, the choice is between McCain and the Dem candidate, and if you throw your vote away, a hundred years war it will be. As in 2000, the future has been announced clearly enough, and the rules of the game are clear enough as well. The word "game" is not meant literally, it's not a game to the billions of people who will be harmed if the US votes the wrong way for a third consecutive time.

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

Why does everyone accuse Nader of running because of his "ego" - I've never heard anyone accuse Kucinich or Paul of running because they're egotistical. an unreasonable man really highlights how consistent his campaigns for the presidency have been with his previous campaigns for consumer rights.

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

Watch the documentary on Nader, Ralph Nader an Unreasonable Man.

The very things he rails against in the corporate world, long hours, slave wages, poor benefits, are the exact same way he treats his own work staff.

It is the height of hypocrisy.

He likely rails so much against the corporate world because part of him believes it is wrong to treat workers this way and he himself treats his own workers this way.

All that cognitive dissonance built up inside of him needs an outlet and the corporate world is it.


I voted for him in 2000, I voted for the Libertarian or Green candidate in 2004 before I saw this documentary, and I will not vote for him again.

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

Run Ralph Run---thats the bumper sticker on my FRONT BUMPER!!!!

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

Gore could have and would have gotten all of the Green and progressive votes if he had compromised with Nader and he could have, and the safety-first Democrats would have voted for Gore no matter what he did. That's precisely what Nader was trying to bring about, as he explained many times during the campaign.

This is the truth, and those who blame Nader for Gore's failure are simply not acknowledging Gore's stubbornly arrogant, elitist attitude - the real and only significant reason he didn't get the progressive vote that would have given him a far bigger margin of victory. C'mon, people - Gore made a fatal strategic error because he thought he didn't need to stand up for Democratic principles that would have hurt his standing as a member of the corporate elite that he had cultivated throughout his disgraceful performance as V.P. Or have some of you out there FORGOTTEN?

NAFTA
The old "Teapot dome" sale.
Occidental Petroleum
Effective Death Penalty etc Act - gutting of
Habeus Corpus
Welfare "Reform"
And more!!!

The guy was a terminal accomodater and a pathetic, compromised loser who managed to win the election and still lose it without so much as a whimper. He couldn't even support the Congressional Black Caucus by casting the Senate vote when he was positioned as the V.P. to do just that when they stood up and tried to save him!

Enough with the Nader thing people. Nader, after all, was trying to save Gore, too, and all of us, and would have handed him the progressive vote on a silver platter along with the votes of many first-time and renegade Republican and Democrat and other voters, had Gore been willing to stoop so low as to take Nader up on it.

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

I love watching liberals blow their tops over Ralph Nader. I love it almost enough to vote for him.

No, it is not Nader's fault that Gore conceded and the Supreme Court appointed King George. I voted for Nader in 2000 as a 19 year old voting in my first election. If Nader hadn't been running, I would have chosen a different left-of-the-democrats candidate. I would not have voted for Gore.

When I first read this article, I considered voting for Nader again. But after thinking about it, it's not the right thing to do. I voted for Nader in 2000 believing a strong showing on the heels of the 1999 Battle in Seattle would be the beginnings of a strong left movement in the US.

Boy, was I wrong! Nader has shown that he either doesn't care about building a party or a movement or he just doesn't know how to do it. He should be investing his time and skills into building a party--a new one, or an existing party such as the Greens. As it is, the radical vote will be split between Nader and McKinney and the Left will be weaker for it.

Presidential bids are not where it's at. Let's start locally. Let's get our people (and I'm speaking to the anti-capitalist left here) on city councils, in state legislatures, in Congress. Then we can talk about the presidency.

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

Hosh Holland started his article off well, then fell into the age-old trap of giving up the Demopublicans. Christ, how many times have we heard the explanation/logic of why ¨we should vote for the Dems this time¨?

I personally have endured that since the mid-60´s, and look where it´s gotten us: Dems who are in the same bed with the same corporate masters; who use the same lies to invade, steal from yet another small, defenseless country; give away more of the treasury to the corporados; ad nauseum. A few facts to remember:
it was the ¨liberal¨ first Clinton who bombed the hell out of the Balkans, who gave away one of the biggest chunks of our remaining airwaves and mixed-ownership media markets, who pushed the original "anti-terrorist" laws, who pushed NAFTA, etc.

It was Lil Jimmy Carter who, after campaigning against expanding nuclear power, sold us out within his first weeks on the job; who supported the Shah of Iran to the end, infuriating the Iranian people, causing the expanded backlash there and throughout the Middle East; who supported the demented dictator, Anastasio Somoza, and inaugurated the covert ops that Moron Reagan amplified.

It was Kennedy who OK´ed the Bay Of Pigs invasion; greatly ramped up the war against the people of Southeast Asia. It was Johnson who ramped it up even more.

The latest batch of Dems are just...the latest batch of Dems. As long as we let them hold us hostage, with the worn-out threat of "it´s either us or the Republicans" we allow them to become more Republican, moving the discourse and the nation farther and farther to the right.

As long as we parrot the pundits and say, "not now, maybe later" the right get stronger and the Dems sell us out more. At some point we have to stand up and say "basta--enough!" That point is long, long overdue.

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

Run, Ralph, run.

Only a Nader candidacy will force the Democratic nominee to pay even the most cursory attention to liberal issues. Without him, it's a race to the insane fringes of the right wing by both parties.

As to whether I'd vote for him, I'll wait and see how well the Democratic nominee lines up on liberal issues. If they sell me out (again) and embrace the corporatists and the warmongers and the insurance lobby, I'll abandon the Dems in a heartbeat and vote Green. I haven't done that before, but frankly, I'm on a hair trigger these days. Democratic corruption is seriously sticking in my craw.

If that costs them the election, good. A party which can't appeal to its own base is a party that deserves to lose. And a nation which can't find its conscience deserves the fate the Republicans have in mind for it.

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

Oh, No! Heaven forbid! It's never the right time for alternative parties or candidates to run in this country. It's never time to hold the corporate duopoly up for examination by those of us who care about democracy and justice to have a voice and have our say. It's never time to act with a conscience and say "These other candidates don't speak for me anymore. I will no longer entertain notions that they'll ever change things." Gee, sorry! Our mistake!

The fact is, candidates of the two corrupt, corporate parties do not speak for a majority of the electorate. None of these candidates has a chance of inspiring us because we understood long ago the interests of big business trump the interests of the average, hard working, unabashedly patriotic...and desperately optimistic American. None of these candidates, if elected, will extricate us from Iraq; none will address real health care for all Americans; none will protect us from the excesses and abuses of corporate power. And yet, liberals and so-called progressives are elated that either a woman or an African-American has a real chance of being elected, dismissing the dismal record of one and the scant and questionable record of the other all in the belief that things really will change. Talk about quixotic!

Ralph Nader has been absolutely consistent in his methods and his message since he first came to the public's attention in the '60's. He has been both unflagging and unapologetic in his criticisms of governmental and corporate power, and he has done more for the American people than any other person in or out of government. Ego and idealism have no place in his make up. He recognizes that things will only change through hard work and a truly informed populace.

I'm happy that this article recognizes his importance and contributions, if not his continuing relevance as an advocate for real political change the time for which is long past due.

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

can't figure out that

NADER'S POSITION PAPERS & PLATFORMS are a TOOL WHICH you should be TAKING THE IDEAS...

walking into your nearest DEMOCRATIC OFFICE

& demanding to have YOUR PREFERRED ISSUES DISCUSSED
addressed

even *GASP* implemented.

nope. Dumb-ass Amerikans are simply happy to have CORPORATIONS negotiate the terms of their Presidential Candidates' platforms.

WAKE UP: if YOU aren't at the negotiating table... THEN you're simply trusting the CANDIDATE to negotiate on your behalf with their backers.


WITHOUT NEGOTIATING: you HAVE NO DEMOCRACY.


don't listen to what NADER HAS TO SAY. hell no. that would be intelligent.

its just so much more FUN to sit around sniveling that your candidates fight each other too much... that the media mistreats them... that nobody understands you...

wake up. you're being screwed. Sitting back & waiting to get what they hand you is being a SERF.




~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

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

There is only one chance to take back our government peacefully; and do it THIS YEAR. And that is if ALL the reform candidates form a coalition third party together, one with only one platform plank: "We must first make the Nation safe to argue in, before continuing the argument!"

This bold and unprecedented move will insure that there is a minimum of partisan bickering or infighting. The "New" part insures that there will no preconceived baggage brought along. Such a movement will attract all the discontented: Progressives, Greens, Indi's, Libertarians, and honest Conservatives. Right out of the gate, it could count on as much as 25% of the population's support; and "steal" votes equally from both mainstream parties.

The movement leaders (Paul, Kucinich, Nader, McKinney, Gravel, and others) can draw straws or some other equally random method on live TV and webcam to choose the actual candidate; because that person is only the name on the ballot. The movement will be the real "candidate", and all will campaign equally hard. And all will move into positions of power once successful. Such a movement will attract many elected officials and distinguished statesmen as well, ”defectors” in the thousands from the failed mainstream party, people who have long yearned for this chance for true reform.

The main message of this new reform coalition will be the cleansing of our government and media from corruption and unseen control, and the protection of our Constitutional Rights and Liberties. It is a powerful motivation; and with the support of the above leaders it could very well succeed (..The ONLY way in which a third party could).

There are ways to put mainstream media onto the defensive, force them to cover the new movement in a more "honest" manner... And ways to insure our votes are counted accurately. All it will take are millions of highly motivated people at the grass roots level with the same patriotic agenda working together with this goal. These issues are so powerful that they are self-motivating; and will hold the coalition together despite the varied political or social differences. Because we know that it is time that the Roman Circus, the Red vs. Blue chariot races held for our distraction and enjoyment are utterly rejected and called for what they really are… And real reform instituted. Never before in our history has there been a better time for doing this; and never before has the need been so great.

Europe has coalition governments; why must we be forced into picking one of two equally bad and corrupt choices? We must find a way to break this grip of corruption that has overcome the government, and a new Coalition Reform Third Party is the way!

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

This group of candidates is the most boring
in history. We need other Parties - we need to have more choices than just a two Party choice. Our problems need greater discussion that would come from another Party or even two more.
Our next President will be a loser -- whoever
it is.

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

"But I won't vote for him, because it's in my own self-interest, as an independent-minded liberal, to beat down the reactionary Right and send them scurrying back to their nests. Consider your own self-interest, and vote accordingly."

Beat down the reactionary Right?! Yeah, the democratic party has a real solid history of that during the Bush administration. Look out Republicans! Obama and Clinton are going to send you scurrying! Apparently he has not noticed how in the last 7 years the Democrats have played dead in Congress and have ceeded their power to the executive by providing essentially no oversight, by confirming Bush's highly conservative justices, and by giving the Bush administration pretty much everything they wanted. The failure of this Congress to impeach Bush on any number of high crimes against the consititution, against civil liberties, and against international law, will be noted as a low point in the history of our government, and makes for shoddy democracy.
I'm sorry, but despite Obama and Clinton's slogans involving hope and change, I have seen NOTHING from either of them, or the Democratic Party in general, to indicate that they intend to represent any sort of progressive agenda. I suppose if it was in your self-interest to continue supporting a party that neither supports democratic institutions or progressive principles, then this commentary would make sense to me.

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