Nader launches exploratory website

It should be required to point out that everytime Democrats blame Nader for 2000, they also thank Perot for 1992.

The Globe posted an editorial recently proactively condemning a 3rd candidate in this race. They also pointed out 2000, but failed to mention that without Perot, there may never have been a Clinton presidency.

Politics can be such a joke. Each side just trades each other's arguments.

I'd like to offer a suggestion to Mr Nader: do your country a favor and STAY THE HELL OUT OF THIS ELECTION.

Not again!!

GET LOST, RALPH. YOU'RE HISTORY. BAD HISTORY.

Nader's new website sounds like an infomercial. Is Ron Popeil one of his campaign consultants.

1/20/8
Mr. Nader would demonstrate more character and considerably more good sense if he supported the current candidate whose views most resemble his own, much the same as the rest of us do. His influence could then be a benefit rather than a harm as it was in the previous election.

yes. greatest thing that could have happened. mcain v hillary with nader in the mix, means more years of republican leadership

Ralph, you've done a lot of good, but Please, God, NO!

Big egos never die...even long after the brain shows no sign of life...

What is he thinking?

I get so tired of hearing how Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election. Any candidate that can't win his own state deserves to lose a general election. What did Tennessee know that the rest of us didn't?

Too late to come to the table....This is a distraction at best. Give it up.

STOP NADER !! CANNOT AFFORT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN MESS !! Eight Years of Bush disaster is enough !!

Oh good heavens, not again.....
Hasn't he done enough damage?

oh great. this guy again.

We got your point, Ralph. Now we got Bush.

If Nader wants to explore, tell him to go explore Mars. We don't want him and we don't need him here on Earth.

But his vote in close, key states helped swing the election to Bush.

Really?? Guess someone needs to watch the documentary "An Unreasonable Man" and spend some time here.

I guess good old Ralph really want John McCain to follow George Bush, his most recent candidate, into the White House.

Ours is not to wonder why; we are just supposed to throw our votes away to the ultimate benefit of Ralph's REAL candidate.

He's got my vote! Until the Democrats stop being Republicans and listen to the progressive people in their party, I will vote for Nader or any progressive. Democrats don't DESERVE any vote, they lost my vote because they won't stand up to corporate bullying.

Ralph Nader is a Halliburton shareholder. That should tell you all you need to know about his true loyalties.

I am an ultra-liberal who used to think Nader was so "cool" in the seventies. Maybe he was then but he sure has switched loyalties. No doubt to me he has gone to the "dark side" and has sold out to the Republicans. They used the same tactic in 2000 and it won them the election---don't think it can't happen again.
Nader---you are a traitor!!! Give it up!

Ralph Nader said then that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

But there were and remain such vast differences, and the future of our country and of the world has been radically altered because of those differences.

Whether he cost Gore the election or not (and I believe he did), for me, Nader's poor judgment is the issue.

No difference, he said. I'll never forget that.

How about if the Democratic Party tried attracting the people Nader appeals to instead of spitting on them? They're supposedly your base. There's all this talk of needing to win the swing votes -- well some of them swing to the left of the Democratic Party.

These days, "A vote for a Democrat is a vote for Bush's policies" makes just as much sense as "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

I like Nader. There is no difference between the Dems and the Repubs so having Independents actually gives you a choice instead of deciding if you want heads or tails of the same coin.

I used to believe those myth that how Nadar spoiled 2000 election. The fact is that Al Gore run a trepid campaign, lost his own home state, and had a conservative running mate. If Gore had standed up for liberal ideas, why would people vote otherwise? Do we have to win by looking more like republican?

Just look at the track record of democrats after they took over the house. The Iraq war is continuing and no troops is reduced. How can we trust democrat leadership?

Ralph Nadar represents a clean hope. Take a look at "Unreasonable Man", then you will know that I am talking about.

Its the responsibility of the voter to use their vote wisely.... SO why is it Nader's fault that people voted for him? If our country wanted a better election process, we'd fight for runoff voting. Instead we accept a 2-party system.

People!! People!! Hold on....
The power of a 3rd party is what this country needs. After the 2000 elections the Dems seemed to have taken notice of that too. See how aggressive they have become since that time.
Anyway, one thing to sum this up, Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in that election. If he had campaigned with the amount of passion you see him today when he talks about global warming he would have won that election hands down along with his home state. Which by the way would have also been the differnce in the 2000 election. To blame Nader is a very easy, non intelligent cop out on the what really happened.

Amen to #23.

Besides that, it looks as if the Democrats are going to offer up as choices either a female or an African-American as candidate for the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. What in the world makes anyone believe that this alone won't give the Republicans a free pass to the White House anyway? I'm tired of progressives like Nader taking the blame because Al Gore couldn't win his own state. The one other hopeful we had, Dennis Kucinich, wasn't even given a place at the table. We Independents may as well vote our consciences anyway because we lose either way.

Wow! Last time I checked America was still a democracy and anybody has the right to run for political office. If you feel so negative about Nader don't vote for him. Stop wasting your time on this site and go out and campaign for the candidate of your choice instead of being an inactive belly-acher.

I think the true problem is not Nader, but the fact that nearly 50% of voters chose Bush. If Bush is as bad as everyone screams he is, then why did so many vote for him? If the Democrats can't come up with a candidate that can easily beat the supposed "worst president in history", then they don't deserve my vote anyway.

Ralph --- please don't do this ever again!!!
...your efforts to disrupt the last 2 campaigns were in a spirit to help do the right things, but the results or your actions were that we got 8 years of leadership from the Village idiots who have severely set our country on completely the wrong course.
... you should accept the reality and the responsibility of your past actions have helped push the USA on the wrong path and you should again realize that it is better to work a compromise within the current parties than to fragment those of us voters who want to keep our country great.
And yes the Democratic party should reach out to you and your followers and you should work with them to a achieve higher level of integrity....
But please don't help the extremist and fundamentalists put more incompetents into to our Executive Branch Leadership unless it is your vision to totally break this country in such negative pieces. We love our country and we respect you and have supported your efforts, but please understand we need to make things better not more broken. ... you would be best served to focus on political diplomacy and the right framework of actions to influence changes with some people that at least might be more open as allies. Running for President is not the right focus for your efforts at this time and you will find that most folks will not support this effort, but those that do vote for you might adversely affect the next election yet again.
Can this country take 4-8 more years of total mismanagement and power hungry agendas from a incompetent right wing of misguided souls that is not really truly focused on constructive conservatism? Then again maybe helping these misguided village idiots was your hidden agenda as I can't think of one good reason why when you knew you would help elect the current administration, you ran for President in the previous elections.

I hope he jumps in and saves us from a Democratic in the White House! Neither Obama or Hillary would be good for this nation. . . one has no experience and the other will be more of the same in DC. . .

please work withen the party,, do not screw the system up again ,pls,pls.dan..

couldn't agree more with barry #23. i remember the clinton years - welfare reform, free trade agreements, etc. i don't want to do that again. obama '08, or what? mckinney?, nader?

Going by many of the comments here, it's clear that people are confusing partisan politics for democracy. No wonder after "exporting" democracy to other countries, it's in short supply back here. All the more reason we need Nader and other people like him to run. Where are you Bloomberg?? Buchanan? Ron Paul, c'mon run as an independent (I'm sure Dems will welcome any third-party candidate who takes away votes from Rep front runner - so much for principles and consistency). The more the merrier.

For all those who are against Nader, I'd ask them: what's Hillary's voting record on Iraq war? Have you seen the movie "An Unreasonable Man" or are you simply amplifying sound bites? On what basis/principles are you supporting exclusion of a candidate? Or maybe you guys are OK with the influence of corporate money on politics and democracy. I'm not and I will support a candidate who reflects my values. Simple as that. Go Nader!!!!!

GET LOST, RALPH. YOU'RE HISTORY. BAD HISTORY.

Where were the Dems protesting the inclusion of Ross Perot in 1992? It's a fact that Bubba won because of him. If you are against third-party candidates, then be consistent in your stance and tell us why and on what principles. Simply "he takes away votes from our candidate" doesn't quite cut it.

Ralph is the only candidate that wouldn't be OWNED by the most powerful lobby in America. See what he has to say about the lobby: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rD_rWcDRZQ

From the man who brought you the George W. Bush Presidency. Stay out, Ralph. We don't need another Repugnican in the race.

was a big fan until nader screwed everything up before. please do not run again. work within the democratic party but don't take votes away. You cost us 8 years of the worst president in history and financial devastation.

was a big fan until you screwed everything up before. please do not run again. work within the democratic party but don't take votes away. You cost us 8 years of the worst president in history and financial devastation.

YES!!!!.....Hillary and Obama are nothing but Republican-lites and voting for one of them is just like voting for the status quo. At one time I thought that I would vote for satan if he or she were a democrat. Now that time has come. This country needs a health care system that covers all and a real economic turn-around for the middle class and the poor....a progressive 3rd party candidate is our only hope. These two just talk the talk...these two can take thier b.s. and walk....

was a big fan until you screwed everything up before. please do not run again. work within the democratic party but don't take votes away. You cost us 8 years of the worst president in history and financial devastation.

John McCain wants war with Iran and is on record saying we will be in Iraq for 100 years - apparently this bothers Mr. Nader not a bit.

Mr. Nader,

I understand your passion for the people of this country. I understand your passion for economic, environmental and social justice.

Perhaps your running for and actually attaining an office would institute REAL change on a smaller scale. Success at the state or local level would allow you to demonstrate the fact-based, quantifiable potential of your ideas.

The path you chose in 2000, however, resulted in serious detrimental consequences for your own causes. Your repeatedly stated position that there is no difference between a Democratic and Republican nominee for President of the United States has, you MUST agree by now, proven quite false.

As a citizen of this country who has many of the same concerns/positions as you, I desperately urge you to choose another elected office to pursue and/or continue to use your fame and voice to call attention to the causes of justice and equality.

Jake

Ralph should run! Someone needs to point out that McCain is owned by big power interests (Nuclear) etc. We need an independant candidate who isn't afraid of his own shadow to force America to look at the environmental issues again. Nadar could point out how McCain brought about the largest coal strip mine in North America by displacing native Navajo and Hopi's and relocating them on a Nuclear dump site where the older folks are dying of cancer and babies are being born with gross deformities. Since McCain is as liberal as Hillary, I think Nadar could actually have the effect of knocking off McCain and clearing the field for a Hillary or Obama Presidency. (Doubt this is true? Plug in "Black Mesa McCain." The native people in that part of his state compare it to Genocide of Saddam Hussein. Then check your search engine for "McCain Nuclear Power."

I'm sicK & tired of voting for Republicans tricked out in Democratic drag. Always the same "lesser of two evils" argument-- and things just keep on getting more & more evil. The corporate Democratic logic of triangulation has moved us so far over to the right that we just voted in a congressional leadership so compromised that they're terrified to stand up to a discredited, lameduck jackass like G.W. Bush. At this point I don't know whether the Dems are compliant or complicit in our national trainwreck. Say what you will about Nader, he sure was right about both political parties being owned lock-stock-and-barrel by the corporations.

was a big fan until you screwed everything up before. please do not run again. work within the democratic party but don't take votes away.

Jeff, there's Kucinich who has been working within the party for many years. How much success has he had, given that you'd (and many Americans) *probably* agree with his stance on many issues - much more than the two front-runners? Where does it say that it has to be a two-party system? In the Bible? Constitution? Please enlighten me.

Please, we cannot afford anymore years of Republican leadership. YOU are responsible for the mess we are in. You know you can't be elected and to run may put another Republican in again. We are becoming a nation of the haves and have nots.

Ralph Nader would be the greatest president America will have had since Lincoln........its a shame Americans can't see this .......... too caught up in hyperbole and wistful dreaming..............

Looks as though you posters all have a little something running down you're trousers...
Nader IS just rattling his chain!

Who are the idiots that support Nader? Truly stupid, stupid people...

I am begging Ralph Nader to please stay out of the race. Because of him we have had eight years of horror. Please, Please, Please, Please stay out of the race.

Ralph Nader knows what both Richard Nixon and Billy Graham knew. And if elected (which he won't be), Ralph wouldn't play the game that all the other candidates have already signed up for.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCuCLA0DhBs

If you run, Ralph, you've got yet another progressive's vote. It's going to be a long steep learning curve for the major parties, so turn up the heat.

the republican's gave us extreme debt and in-security that spread hate toward's us, the democrat's won the last round of election's and we got "paralized Pelosi "and nothing has changed. I consider Ralph to be the most common sense solution, if people dis-agree with that they simply aren't paying attention and their negative comment's prove that to be true. God bless you Ralph and if it came to a fight, we who have payed attention WILL go to battle with/for a leader like Ralph without hesitation. He can be trusted, NO other candidate has that going for them, so run Ralph run, I will be right beside you, again. Until now/today I wasn't going to vote anyway so, no "stolen vote's" here. Suggestion; Lou Dobbs would make the ultimate running mate, give him a call. TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT! (for the people/by the people)

the republican's gave us extreme debt and in-security that spread hate toward's us, the democrat's won the last round of election's and we got "paralized Pelosi "and nothing has changed. I consider Ralph to be the most common sense solution, if people dis-agree with that they simply aren't paying attention and their negative comment's prove that to be true. God bless you Ralph and if it came to a fight, we who have payed attention WILL go to battle with/for a leader like Ralph without hesitation. He can be trusted, NO other candidate has that going for them, so run Ralph run, I will be right beside you, again. Until now/today I wasn't going to vote anyway so, no "stolen vote's" here. Suggestion; Lou Dobbs would make the ultimate running mate, give him a call. TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT! (for the people/by the people)

Good grief, Ralph, not again. I agree that everyone has the right to run for office, but when it is absolutely clear that you don't have a snow ball's chance in hades of winning, back OUT!

The republican's gave us extreme debt and in-security that spread hate toward's us, the democrat's won the last round of election's and we got "paralized Pelosi "and nothing has changed. I consider Ralph to be the most common sense solution, if people dis-agree with that they simply aren't paying attention and their negative comment's prove that to be true. God bless you Ralph and if it came to a fight, we who have payed attention WILL go to battle with/for a leader like Ralph without hesitation. He can be trusted, NO other candidate has that going for them, so run Ralph run, I will be right beside you, again. Until now/today I wasn't going to vote anyway so, no "stolen vote's" here. Suggestion; Lou Dobbs would make the ultimate running mate, give him a call. TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT! (for the people/by the people)

Even though I respect Mr. Nader, he will never win, so why keep doing this? Please stop, Mr. Nader and do the things that you are good at. Running for the Presidency is not one of them.

i was afraid of this nonsense coming into play. please not again.

If it is Billary v. McCain, I'm for Nader.

GO OBAMA! (or go home)

Here are some issues to consider:

One Path to the Presidency

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Both leading Democratic candidates repeatedly have emphasized “change” as a core theme in their campaigns for the presidential nomination. They talk of changes to improve the lives of women, Blacks, Hispanics, and children -- but I still am waiting to hear what changes they have in mind to help me, other white men, and boys specifically.

In October, 2007 David Paul Kuhn published The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. The most important statistic in this book is that white males constitute the second largest voting bloc in America: “They [white males] make up between 36 and 39 percent of voters, roughly five times more than Hispanic male and female voters combined. White women are about a 5 percent larger voting bloc than white men…” (p. 6).

Listening to the acceptance and concession speeches following the Democratic primary in South Carolina last night, I heard no candidate speaking to us. Not surprisingly, Kuhn argues, white men vote Republican. Democrats seeking to win big on Super Tuesday next week might well want to begin by reading Kuhn’s book today.

To help them along, here are three critical issues for men. The first is job outsourcing and the economy -- focusing on jobs for men as well as jobs for women. The next is divorce and child support. The biggest negative consequence for men of past presidential pandering to the women’s vote is that federal law now funds the divorce and domestic violence industries that separate fathers from their children and transfer wealth from men to women. To regain the male vote of all racial and ethnic groups, Democrats must come to value boys and men, support marriage, discourage divorce by leveling the legal playing field, and encourage father-child relationships.

If this does not constitute change, I don’t know what would.

The third and most important long-term issue is the boy and man crisis in education. As widely documented, in K through 12, boys are losing ground to girls on virtually all indices. At the undergraduate, level men constitute at best 40% of college students, and at the graduate and professional levels they constitute distinct minorities in most fields.

What boys need is a massive change in social attitudes giving them the same kinds of social support and encouragement now given to girls. At the federal level, boys also need the same kinds of interventions designed to remedy and enhance educational attainment currently offered to girls.

So, what’s all this got to do with the path to the presidency in 2008? In my view, just as candidates began attending to the needs, wants, and aspirations of girls and women in the 1960’s, so too today, do candidates need to attend to the needs, wants, and aspirations of boys and men not only if they wish to win the Presidency – but far more importantly – if they wish to improve the quality of life for all citizens in 2009 and beyond.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami. His faculty web site is: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm

So the Green Party is officially owned by Republicans? Excellent! Finally Ralph is getting the corporate backing he needs to take down those peace loving progressive Democrats. Nader '08 -- not spoiled, not a spoiler, just an unreasonable man trying to help corporate power crush America.

If the Democrats loose this election it will be because they ignored the very people for who they claim to fight. The Democrats lost the 2000 and 2004 elections because they remained in the aegis of big business and the elite class that purchases Republicans and Democrats. It is time for a change. People should no longer choose to vote on the basis of the "lesser of two evilism" and begin to vote their conscience, this is the way the two dominant parties of today came into power. Thus, if one believes the values that Nader purports, they ought to vote for him because otherwise they would be betraying their own values and principles. It is time for the progressives in this country to take what is rightfully ours and make our voices heard loud and clear by building a third party through votes for an alternative candidate or by forcing the Democrats to finally respect our interests instead of the interests of big business. The only way to do this is to vote your conscience. I say Nader and his message should run, and if you believe in it, then vote for it.

I'm amused by the people who declare it as "fact" that Perot swung the election to Bush, since they have obviously never researched it. Exit polls showed that Perot voters split about 50-50 on who they would have voted for if Perot weren't in the race. And that's a fact you can actually look up.

As for Gore not carrying his home state, this is another one people like to throw out there without really knowing what they're talking about. Several Presidents have been elected without carrying their home state. After being VP for eight years, Gore no longer had the ties to the state. As a national oficer, he couldn't concentrate on just taking care of his home state. His stance on gun control is considered the most likely reason Tennessee voters turned against him. Should he have completely changed his positon to win Tennessee?

And it's plausible that Mitt Romney could win be elected President, but there's no way in hell he would ever carry Massachusetts.

This is a cruel joke. Who is paying you Ralph? The republican party?

Yep. I have had enough. Nancy and Harry you had your chance, it took awhile but I have come to realize that you are nothing but republicans, if Ralph runs I am with him... go RALPHIE

"I get so tired of hearing how Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election. Any candidate that can't win his own state deserves to lose a general election. What did Tennessee know that the rest of us didn't?"

Given that Bush lost the state where he grew up (on the family's private estate in Massachusetts), this is a rather weak argument. Admittedly he did move to Texas in order to run for Governer there, but he's far from a native Texan.

Go Ralph. We need an alternative to Hillary Corporation and the Republican War Machine. Until the Dems stop acting like kinder, gentler republicans we will continue to need an alternative.

I am finally optimistic for the 2008 presidential election. I finally have some hope. I hope Ralph Nader runs for president.
I am so sick of Democrats thinking they automatically own votes. Combine that with the fact Democrats want the US population to have just TWO choices for President and the party does not look very "democratic" at all.
Even if it does come down to just two candidates, the Democrats are so absent of an agenda, McCain will beat Obama or Clinton.
Thank you Ralph Nader for representing my interests.

Thank you Ralph Nader for representing my interests.

Please everyone, visit this page and tell Ralph to throw another blanket over his legs and give the rocking-chair another push.

We don't need him and his Johnny One-Note campaign to fuck up the American political system.

We Democrats can fix our own problems in our own ways. We don't need some outsider coming in to screw things up for the entire country.

For once, he should think about what is best for the country and not what will stroke his ego the most.

Ralph Nader is an idealogue, refusing to compromise.

That makes for a great consumer advocate, and a terrible politician.

If you cannot work with other people, and Ralph has demonstrated he cannot even get along with the Democrats, you will not be able to get anything done in Washington. Who will he work with if he got elected? He's as stubborn as Bush, he's just alienated both parties.

Not to mention, he said Bush and Gore were the same. He was either lying, or he is a terrible judge of character. Either way, I don't trust him.

He also said he would not campiagn or run in contested states in 2000, so he recognized the impact he could have. Then he broke his promise and did it anyway. In that respect, he's like any other politician, except they can get elected.

He was also on the Republican's side during the Terri Schiavo controversy, and said that she had not gotten a re-trial based on new eveidence, when the truth was the case was ajudicated 22 times, with the same result every time.

Supporting and securing IRV - that's Instant Runoff Voting - or some other form of preferential voting system for our national elections is a key first step that would forever remove the label of "spoiler" from any third party candidate. This simple solution would allow us to vote our hopes instead of our fears. In other words, those of us who think Ralph Nader is the best candidate would be able to vote for him as first choice and then pick, say, the Democratic nominee as second choice. This way we could really see how many people support Nader's sane, progressive platform and, perhaps, actually achieve real change in this nation - without having to worry that our vote would indirectly elect the Republican candidate.

oh for god's sake, this man needs to get a grip.
I used to think he was ethical...no I think he is just an egotist who there is nothing green about him anymore.

If he spoiles the show, many people, including myself will lose it. Lose our insantiy. Lose our will to live. You might as well bring on the Antichrist and the Apocalypse.

Gore/Nader 2008

"Change NOW"

Perhaps the Democratic candidate will respond by formulating a specific, progressive program of reforms that will benefit the poor, the working class, and the middle class and for ending the war. The effort to take votes away from Nader might make the Democrats a party more truly representative of the needs and wishes of the American people. The loss of the Democrats 8 years ago had more to do with the caution, inertia, hesitancy, and timidity of the Democratic candidates than it did with Nader's candidacy. I will vote for the Democratic candidate, but the issues that Nader is likely to raise are the compelling issues of our time, and the Democratic Party will make another huge mistake if they fail to understand that.

Oh, I'm sorry, where in the Constitution does it say that only Democrats and Republicans can run for president?

What is wrong with you people? Are we still living in a democracy?

If the democrats are so concerned about winning in november, then stop nominating worthless candidates who can only win by slim majorities.

Hillary will be trounced by McCain whether Nader is involved or not. If the party misses out on obama, they;ll have no one to blame but themselves.

Democrats should realize that the failure of their party to embrace a program of vigorous reform is what has defeated them in the past. A Nader third-party candidacy might cause the Democratic Party, in the hope of cutting into the Nader constituency, adopt a program that will offer concrete assistance to working class people, the poor, and the middle class. That would be a prescription not only for nullifying the impact of Nader at the polls, but for defeating the Republicans and electing a Democrat to the Presidency. The Democrats in 2000 lost as much because they failed to present a clear, sweeping program of reform as to the competition from Ralph Nader.

Why not Nader too--the rest really aren,t leaders or give a darn about this once great country--it is power trip for the Clinton,s--and the old man on the other side reminds me of a rabbit old dog I used to have--please read the story about the 131.Million Clinton got from the uranium peddler from Canada-does any voter read--the media wants Mc Cain and Hillary--and we want neither--give Obama a chance--I am not saying we be better off--but the ugly american,s have to be faded out--please.
I voted for Bush and will vote for Obama this time--only for the change--not the idiology--I am a conservative--but for Gods sake get the power hungry or the ones we owe them the victory-get them on their way once and for all--give a change and hope a chance-we need it so badly.--Even Europe hopes Obama will get a chance.
Sincerly a old lady from Texas

Nader's irresponsible, egomaniacal intransigence in 2000 is a MAJOR reason why we have had a bozo in the White House for seven years. We now have Alioto and Roberts on the Supreme Court, the country economically reeling with its rich richer and poor poorer, 4,000 Americans dead, tens of thousands seriously injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, the oil economy in an even more dominant position, and corporate America out-of-control. With all the blood on Nader's hands, one can only wonder how anyone could take him seriously. If anyone belongs in the Ash-Can of History, it is surely he.

Dear Brian Prentis,

Not very word that ends with "s" requires an apostrophe.

Ruining one election wasn't enough? Giving us 8 years of hell under a non-elected, selected-by-the-Supreme-Court idiot wasn't enough? Now you have a yen to do it again? Take yourself to the nearest mental hospital, Ralph, and have your head examined.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

Big difference.

"Oh boohoohoo! Ralph Nader stole our votes and pushed us down and took our lunch money!" Typical democrats. Can't take responsibility for your own screwups.

I'm voting for Ralph. I don't care if it's Nader or Wiggum; the Dems ain't getting my vote.

Hey all you Dem cry-babies, how about you give me a candidate who is:
1. for public funding of elections
2. against corporate money in politics
3. believes in global warming and wants to take concrete pro-active steps
4. against Iraq war and committed to getting troops back soon
5. for investment in renewable energy
6. health care for all

Oh, and "anybody but Bush" (like in 2004) is not good enough, nor is it a viable candidacy. If that's the best you can muster, then no surprise, Nader gets my vote. It just doesn't make sense to be for all the progressive positions and then not support a candidate who stands up for those values. Just because I support progressive causes does not automatically mean I have to line up behind a Democrat. Remember Tom Finneran?? Another Democrat (or Autocrat) and as corrupt as they come. I like to vote with my hopes rather than my fears.

Oh and while you're at it, consider changing the name of your party to Anti-Democratic Party. Because there's nothing democratic about your whining to keep a candidate out of elections. Name should correctly reflect attitudes.

If you are so concerned about "spoilers" spend your energy at making the electoral system better by advocating for Instant Runoff Voting, because whether you like it or not, "spoilers" are here to stay - just wait till Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring.

By the way, I'm curious, how many of you really know who your elected officials are at the national, state and local levels? How often do you correspond with them and give them feedback on progressive issues that you so dearly care for?

sure, you worthless self-indulgent piece of excrement. why not destroy the political process for you own oral gratification. what the world needs are more has-beens prancing around like their vision is the only one worth anything

For the sake of the country DO NOT do it

For the love of country -- refrain from entering and cluttering the race. Support one of the top Dems. This could be your legacy for 2008-09.

Nader running for president = Worst. Idea. Ever.

A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and a vote for Nader in 2008 would be a vote for a Bush-clone. If Nader (or any candidate) can't win in a primary election, then he (or they) shouldn't be running in the general election PERIOD.

Why? Because a third party candidate has ZERO chance of being elected, and until we get run-off voting, they will NEVER have a chance. Are Nader supporters really so deluded and/or unintelligent that they can't understand that basic concept? Republicans understand this concept all too well, and that's why they fund Nader's campaigns. That's right, Nader gets his money from the same people he claims to be fighting.

And, Amit, "Anti-Democratic Party"? Don't be naive. Your ignorance is truly depressing. We have a system where a person can get less than 50% of the vote yet still become president; how democratic is that to begin with? (Oh, and I know who my elected officials are, and I contacted three of them just last week. Thanks for asking.)

Either we work together to make our country better, or Republicans continue to divide us and destroy this country. End of story.

fish wrote:

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

Big difference.
=====
Uh, fish. Some questions. How many of those 77 Senators were Democrats? How many of those 296 congressmen were Democrats? Was Hillary in that 77 or 23? How about Ron Paul, a Republican?

I disagree with whatever egotistical self centered reasons Nader is using to run but defend his right to do so. This time, with lessons learned, the sane will avoid him anyway. Of course there will be those stray votes made to him, along with votes to Chiquita Banana, the Muffin Man, Michael Vick and his best friends Pluto, Tramp, and Santas Little Helper.

Q?: When is a spolier not a spoiler?
A: When he's got a billion dollar$ !

Bubba Clinton and his Congresses (Republican AND Democrat) gave us NAFTA and WTO, sent our good-paying jobs and industry to Mexico, South America and Asia while his spouse met with insurance company executives to create HMOs.

Now, as our incomes continue to shrink, as our Latino brothers and sisters flee homeland exploitation for an almost worse America, as our health care becomes increasingly unaffordable and as some 20 million of us become homeless, as China continues shipping unhealthful goods while it continues exploiting its own people for corporate and personal gain, we continue to wait for inspired leadership from the wonder boys and girls of the Democratic and Republican Parties who still control Congress. Whither the Democrats who continue taking money from, and protecting, their corporate sponsors. Another 8 years of the Clintons? As Billy says: "Gimme a break!"...Whither voters now upset with Ralph running for office - can't they get their Democratic Congress to do what they want?

In a free America, anyone ought to be able to run for any office - without all the obstacles the Democrats put in front of Ralph....and ANYONE ought to be allowed into the debates. And anyone willing to work ought to be able to own a home and provide a living for his/her family, without fear of financial ruin from banks, insurance companies or uncaring public officials. I cannot recall, did any Democrats in Congress take on Bush as he sat on his hands while New Orleans drowned? As some 50 million Americans do without health care? As the USA becomes a 3rd World nation? As our education system sinks below 15th or more in the world?

Go Ralph! You can do more for America and the planet in 1 week than any Democrat can in 8 years....or 16!

Alan DiCara -healthcarepartyusa@yahoo.com
www.healthcarepartyusa.org

Al Gore won the 2000 election, but the title of President was given to George Bush. People keep forgetting that.

This Tuesday I will have to choose between corporate-friendly Obama and corporate-friendly Hillary. The only difference I can see between the two is that some programs and policies dear to social liberals will get some breathing room if Hillary wins and then takes the general election.

Nonetheless our democracy will continue to erode as corporations continue to write our laws and pays off Congress & POTUS to pass them.

There are as many people in the lower ranks of the Republican party who are fed up with the situation as there are Democrats. Who knows what may happen?

There

If its Hillary gooooo Mr. Nader if its Obama please sit this one out. People need to take the Bush goggles off and realize Bill's time in office wasn't that great! We need new blood. All of you people blaming Mr. Nader need to get a life!

In 2000 Gore won the popular and electoral votes. When Billy Boy chose to unzip in the Oval Office, he slimed the presidency enough to allow the GOP to steal the election with their five-thugs in the Supreme Court. Nader never cost Gore anything. There were many facets to the Gore "lost", but Clinton's lust set the stage for many of the bad things that happened later. With an Obama/Webb ticket, there is no need for Nader to do "His Thing".

Bryan, good for you that you are more involved in the democratic process than just getting excited about the tweedledum&tweedledee circus that happens once every four years.

If you go through the comments, I have asked certain questions which no one has answered except for giving worthless sound bites. Tell me where is it written than only two parties are allowed to contest the elections? Tell me how continuing to vote for Dems who keep shifting to the right is going to help the progressive causes? How many candidates are against Iraq war? I'm not being naive, I like to keep things simple and believe that one should vote for a candidate who reflects one's viewpoint and values, otherwise once you get into the mud, you get dirty and tie yourself in pretzel logic trying to justify why you're supporting a pro-Iraq war candidate because she got emotional. If voting for a candidate based on my principles and hopes is naive, then I'm glad to accept that label. You keep voting for the Dems and continue to see both parties keep shifting to the right. Sorry, one has to make a clean break. As I said, let the Democrats offer a candidate who reflects my views and I'll happily vote hor him/her. Here's a challenge: why don't you take stock after 8 years and see if Dems being in power has changed things for the better or not. I'm not talking about bare minimum rearguard action, but some real progress and moving forward.

I just have to wonder why folks here think voting for Dems was good for the country. Haven't you looked closely at Clinton's track record, or are you guys in denial?

Oh, and Bryan, FYI, Republicans are part of this country too and also not a monolith. So if you want to work together, we all have to work together - all Americans, otherwise you're playing the same game of divisive politics and fear tactics that you accuse the "other side" of. Unless you think it's Armageddon and you're fighting the forces of evil by being on the "good" side. A look at their candidates shows (in some ways) how diverse they are when it comes to stance on issues - from anti-war Ron Paul to pro-war McCain, though they all are white males. If Dems want to get progressive votes, offer a candidate like Kucinich who has a solid voting record and a progressive stance, instead of barring him from debates (so much for freedom). But if you ask an average American, s/he would probably know more about his beautiful wife and her tongue stud, than Kucinich's ideas and stance on issues. I can't help it if you are too wedded to your "Democrat" political identity and unable to see the faults. That's human nature. And yes, actions to keep out a candidate (as happened with Nader in 2004) is undemocratic, no matter how you cut it. What definition of "democracy" are you using?

You know, rest of the world looks up at the US when we talk about democracy, but they can also see the hypocrisy - which Americans are blind to - and I can see why - as some comments here prove. Partisan politics is NOT democracy. Your mileage, of course, varies. *shrug*

I used to admire you, Ralph.

Now you've become a self-indulged windbag whose legacy is lower than President "Mission Accomplished".

Nice job washing your reputation down the toilet!

Jim Lynch
Grand Island, NY

Both parties did all they could to quiet debate! Kucinich Paul Gravel etc.No more Bushes or Clintons Go Ralph Go for Progressives

James P. Lynch:

Only egotistical politicians and slime-balls care for their reputation. Principled and courageous people who care for common people and fight the good fight have no need for egotistical concepts like reputation. They do their honest work rather than worrying about their perceptions among people.

Please do yourself a favor and watch the movie "An Unreasonable Man" before you make such statements about Nader. Thanks.

Nader will run with Gore on a Green independent ticket and win the 2008 election by exposing and fighting against the corporatist Empire hiding behind this facade of 'Vichy America', which by November will have thrown the US into a second Great Depression and a greatly expanded war in the Middle East.

Great change comes incrementally. Nadar was a spoiler in the 2000 election, and our country lost the opportunity to be led by Al Gore who has been vindicated through his marvelous work with the environment. Ralph Nadar seems to be narcissistic and exhibits behavior through his spoiler tactics that harm any chance for real positive change in our land. We now have George W. Bush, the worst president of all time...in part because of Nadar's 2000 run. PLEASE do not run in this election, Mr. Nadar.

Dear Mr. Nader,

This is a hard letter to write because I support the Green Party's analysis and policy positions on issues. I have wanted to see a third party in this country and I am totally disgusted with alignments of the Democratic Party with Wall Street. However, I think your late entry is not the way to build confidence in the intentions of the Green Party. Many, many believe your candidacy was a spoiler eight years ago. People will not appreciate the Green Party playing that role again now.

On "Democracy Now" 1/31/08, you said "people have the power if they focus it". Your entry at this time cannot be said to be aobut helping to "focus it". That takes people learning the facts, getting access to dialogue that makes the connections between their life experiences and those facts, and becomming individually and collectively empowered. That won't happen effectively in the last eight months before the election. If you wanted to help people understand those connections, why didn't you enter the process months ago? Your entry now could have a destructive effect in this election in regards to several important issues.

I urge you to respect the work of other activists who work their whole life most often out of the limelight in community organizations creating changes like those endorsed by the Green Party. Most of these people are not backing the Green Party. Why is that?

Despite the fact that gaining visibility is difficult, please help build the Green Party as a radically progressive organization, not it's reputation as a "spoiler party".

Thank you for your attention to this posting.

There's one key difference with the Republicans blaming Perot for their 1992 loss and Democrats blaming Nader for 2000. The Republicans weren't stupid like Democrats. They incorporated almost all of Perot's platform, except the anti-NAFTA part, into the Contract With America, and immediately derailed the Clinton presidency. After 2000, however, even though the Democrats believe they lost because of Nader's appeal to progressive voters, they chose to steer even further towards the right -- not only eliminating those lost voters rather than appealing to them to join, but losing even more while giving the Republicans room to move even further to the right. What's up with that? Can't you folks do math? Or at least learn from the winners? You think you lost 2.9 million voters, and instead of going out to get them, you beat them up and move further away from them. How many Nader races will it take before you come to your senses?

Mr. Nader,

If you had wanted voters to consider your issues and candidacy, you should have involved yourself in the politic process of this election year much MUCH earlier. Your stated issues of presidential contenders not addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights is is false. Both issues are worthy of discussion, and have been discussed. Clinton, OBama and McCain have raised there concern and desire to address pork barrel spending and earmarks. The democrates have both argued for tax law changes disfavoring job outsourcing by corperations and about non-fair trade agreements. Over the debates its has become very apparent what the candidate's positions are and also which issues are most important to the American public. 1. "Its the economy stupid". 2. The War in Iraq, pointless to say why we went, the key is what are we doing from here on and "out". 3. Heath cost (retirement), the cost of heath care most come under control, affordale to or granted universaly to all. The social security money pit has to be fixed. Now if you wish to specifically state that you, as president, address the corperation/government curruption cronyism by specificaly charging "George W - Cowboy Diplomacy" and "DICK - the Crony" and prosicuting them for war crimes and war profitering ... I might listen to you further in this campaign. Since you have opted to come in to the discussion late in the 1tth hour ... you best have a hard and key stance ... or keep your mouth shut ... so far you words are nothing not aready discussed and pushed by other candidates, who have shown they are involved, concerned and listening to the American People.

Go for it Ralph!! We need anybody but the 2 yahoo's running now.

I will vote for him! I would like to see Bloomberg run with him

I cannot believe that Ralph Nadar has JUST started his presidential campaign. He has done soooooo much for this country. I believe that the people that will vote for him will be the people who would not otherwise vote for anyone. I believe that it is time for a woman to be president. We, as a gender, have come very far in the last 100 years. It is time for more women to become involved in politics. I, myself, vote only for women. When there are more women in politics, then we, as women, can choose via their beliefs. However, I must think about this more as far as Clinton vs Nadar. I believe that Nadar, as well, would do much for this country.

How a country of 300 million could have only two differing kinds of opinions is totally unreal. As for the electoral college choosing the president in the 21st century is beyond comprehension. Unless 50% + one of the population actually turns out to vote, the vote should be declared invalid. This way, at least by staying away from voting one can register one's disapproval.

I personally think that Nader is unelegible for becoming President because he has some neurological disorder that allows him to complete. Don Quixote undertook a glorious campagn and remained a very sad old broken man tilting wildmills. Nader is sorrier because he obviously is being funded by someone who doesn't like the looks of the Obama campaign and has funnelled funds to him----looks like a likely place to give Nader money to act as a spoiler insuring a republican victory as Huckleberry says. So you Nader supporters try not to recognize that that cleaner than clean champion from the seventies is now in his seventies and it is not a time now for him but the next generations to carry those banners and take the next lap. Naders personal egomania as the only answer may comfort him on a cold night but there is a myriad of talented young people who see more clearly that the future beliongs to this brave new world and not the myoptic. I followed the exploits of Nader raiders but its been a while since they have inspired even a fraction of their old followers. I'm sixty and I recognize the technocrats of today find rational logical reasons for their actions and can lead through this scientific and technological rather than the ideological. To those who haven't decided to stay home yet---figure that you should weigh the most likely winner possibilities and chose and not throw away your vote on someone imbedded in the glories of the seventies.It would be decent of Nader to bow right out again.

.I think that Nader suffers from some neurological disorder which warps his perception of his role vis a vis the world that exists today, Nader is living in the days of the Nader raiders who were viewed as the knoghts in armor suiting up and facing torrific odds. But he wasn't so untouched with the change of guard since this is the turn of this century. That are new heroes and they are less ideological and more technological and scientific savvy. They also have talents we didn't possess oh so long ago when we were young. I am sixty which means I remember ,but I also think that our generation has fought our fights and dropped our balls and now it is up to new generations who are fresh and strong and prepared in ways we did not even learn. It is hard to give up the lead and trust the new generations who are showing that they are excited and full of a energy that is not as jaded from the in fighting of our generations. Nader has his place but on good days he must see that he is a bit unconnected and on some old tapes. It is only ego that sees oneself as Nader the only green solution. I hope that he thinks twice and then again and sees that he doesn't have the charisma to bring along those people fired to vote this year. He just doesn't have it now and it will tarnish who he was if he continues to insert himself into the dreamcatchers of today. There is a fire and a potentiality that can enfold in some other role but not his leader of a one man band. Staying in the fight with such a slim if not nil chance can only fulfill Huckabee"s amused observation that he won't take from the republicans and c an only drain the democratic chances. Not my immediate reaction but this just feeds into those who feel this is just what happened in 2000 and he came away as less a progressive or a reformer and more of a spoiler and that could be his legacy and place in history. George Bush's king maker. Graceful retreats would see this can restore some faith in him and his life struggle and not just a means of egrandishment of his own role in American progress.Please leave the race.

Nader be gone stop blowing elections for your personal satisfaction!!!!!!!!!!!