F.U. Nader (w/poll)

So it seems that Ralph Nader is running again.

You've got to be kidding me!

No matter what anyone (myself included) may have said about Nader's assessment of the Democratic party as a vehicle for change in the United States, it is painfully clear that there isn't really room for a divisive splinter candidate in the electorate to leave a functioning, viable majority that can resist GOP turn-back-the-clock-ism.

In short: get lost, Ralph.  You may have been right about the Democrats and GOP, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.  In 2000, you could not have foreseen the horrendous damage that your candidacy would do.  Today, you cannot make that claim.  

•  he'll be a non factor

  by Salo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:13:38 AM PDT

  •  I am surprised MTP even let him on, and

    he has gotten a bigger stir here then he has/will anywhere else.  As you said, Nader is a non-factor.

    by dkmich on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:22:28 AM PDT

    •  Agreed...

      Lyndon Larouche has been running a lot longer than Nader and nobody bitches about him every single campaign.

      by cometman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:31:11 AM PDT

      •  Who can argue with these....

        *Adopt single payer national health insurance  
        *Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget    
        *No to nuclear power, solar energy first        
        *Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare  
        *Open up the Presidential debates  
        *Adopt a carbon pollution tax  
        *Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East  
        *Impeach Bush/Cheney    
        *Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law  
        *Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax    
        *Put an end to ballot access obstructionism  
        *Work to end corporate personhood  

        What I would give to have Obama supporting these.

        by dkmich on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:40:22 AM PDT

        •  Nader didn't cost Gore the election in 2000

          A very, very shi##y campaign, a corrupt Supreme Court, Bill Clintons Blowjob,and the stupidity of the average "low information voter"  did.

          I never did and never will vote for Ralph Nader but I'm thankful for the lifetime of activism.

          by ctkeith on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:13:14 AM PDT

          •  I agree.

            Lets add a badly designed ballot, Jeb Bush, and Gore/Dems not being willing to fight.  

            by dkmich on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:22:17 AM PDT

            •  he campaigned in Florida

              he cost Gore tens of thousands of votes, dwarfing every ruse the republicans pulled to cheat Gore out of Florida.

              He met with Grover Norquist's group and they gave him a standing ovation for defeating Gore.  He's a republican stooge.

              by unterhausen on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:49:23 AM PDT

  •  The reachable ones learned after 2000

    I have frank doubts that anyone who voted for him in 2004 is someone worth bothering with.  They may claim that they'd really vote for a Democrat they could believe in, but that's a sad cry for relevance, for their being something at all different from a Natural Law or Peace & Freedom Party voter.  Anyone who really cared about the direction of this country got a hint after 2000.

    by fstlicho on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:22:59 AM PDT

    •  A hint????

      Anyone who really cared about the direction of this country got a hint after 2000.

      hints are usually subtle, 2000 was a sledgehammer.

      by Lilyvt on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:28:17 AM PDT

      •  I have a weakness for understatement.

        by fstlicho on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:20:25 AM PDT

    •  yep, and we elected a democratic

      congress.  That did a lot of good, huh?  

      4 more years of war, occupation, and death. Wonderfull.

      by Cheney on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:38:39 PM PDT

      •  Woo-wee - a 50-50 Congress

        With a Republican in the White House.  Talk about your landslides!!!  Woot!

        Shouldn't you be plying your wares at dailyralph.com or somesuch?

        by fstlicho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:43:43 AM PDT

        •  and clinton obama will change the status quo?

          both vote 4 war. Why?

          Which presidential candidate is against the Iraq war and occupation? Sure Obama (who I voted for) was against the war before becoming a Senator, but I don't see him doing anything about it now.

          How can anyone vote for a candidate that will maintain an illegal occupation of Iraq?  Its time to get out, tell the world we're sorry and assist the UN in cleaning up our huge mess.  Instead, O C vote to remain in Iraq and increase the military budget to a minimum floor requirement of 4% GDP (not including Iraq or Pakistan).  You like to pay tax towards the MIC? Not me.

          Niether Obama or Clinton are truely intersted in reforming health care in this country.  They will continue to promote the insurance industry. How does that help?

          I could go on and on, but really whats the point? Unless they have a D by the name I doubt you're interested.

          Apparently I'm more a Democrat than you. Without 3rd party representation, the Dems will never evolve or absorb progressive agendas. If Obama or Clinton are determined to re-capture any Nader votes, they simply need to adapt several of the issues.  By the way, which of Nader's issues are you against?

          Saw The Fixx last summer.  Good show.

          by Cheney on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:51:31 AM PDT

          •  What Nader votes?

            Nader votes are about as electorally significant as Peace & Freedom votes.  The man is a pale, pathetic joke.  He was that in 2000 when he slandered Al Gore and the whole lot of the Naderites were too drunk on their own fumes to notice.  What has Saint Ralph done about global warming in the last seven years?  Take your time getting back to me.

            You're more of a Democrat than me in the same sense that Benedict Arnold was more of a patriot than one of the militiamen at Concord.  You've bought the 2008 vintage Naderite myths, the old wine in new bottles.  Remember Bush and Gore as twins?  Tweedledum and Tweedledee?  That hasn't aged very well.  We wouldn't even be in Iraq if Gore was in the White House - another lovely earthly feat to lay at the feet of Saint Ralph.

            Nader is a marginal freak and his supporters are as well.  A Democratic nominee would stand to pick up more voters by proclaiming his (I'm on the Obama side as well) belief in UFOs.  Naderites belong right next to Perotians and Bush supporters in the dustbin of history and I rather wager that 2008 will put them there.

            by fstlicho on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:59:27 AM PDT

  •  As Nader said himself,

    Democrats, he said, were "complicit" and if they did not win by a "landslide" this year, "they should just close down".

    by otheruser on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:36:35 AM PDT

    •  So his best solution to evaluate the odds of that

      Is by running his sorry ass again and draining off a few percentage points from the Dems?

      I want to kick Ralph Nader's ass so hard.  I know so many people who voted for him over Gore, buying into the "there is no difference" line.   How anyone could mistake Duh for Al Gore was one thing, how Ralph Nader could say it was another.  

      Nader knows perfectly well that placing himself in this fray does nothing but give John McCain an edge.  

      by kate mckinnon on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:47:27 AM PDT

•  hello Ralph Nader

  by condoleaser on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:13:55 AM PDT

  •  That's brilliant!

    Except the bit about Edwards made me sad. But it's brilliant.

    by scardanelli on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:25:29 AM PDT

    •  Make this YOU-TUBE's No. 1 watched video!!!

      Maybe, then he'll get the message...

      The irony here? He's running because neither Edwards nor Kucinich won? Hah!! If Al Gore had run, he'd be a pig in shit. Happy as a clam. AL GOre!? Remember Al Gore? The guy who was just like th other guy, so Nader had to run to provide an alternative?

      Let's face it. Whatever good Ralph Nader did has already been outweighed by the bad. Maybe, that's why he just doesn't give a shit anymore about what damage he does.

      by FischFry on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:38:56 AM PDT

      •  Get the message?

        Hell no. He'll just think people like watching him.

        by scardanelli on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:44:48 AM PDT

•  I'm not defending Nader

  but I really think it's obvious by now that this isn't just about his ego. Let's face it, you have to wonder if there isn't an AT&T file with his name on it somewhere (snark, sort of).

  by o the umanity on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:14:36 AM PDT

  •  I don't think so.

    He gets blown out and half the progressives call him a spoiler. This isn't a Rolling Stones tour where millions come out to hear the old hits. People boo him. He is seen as a pariah for this.

    I think he really believes in what he is doing. I do as well. I hope ballot access is eased to allow more voices.

    I'm donating my time, money, and vote to Barack Obama, but Ralph Nader is a good man.

    by Common Cents on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:25:39 AM PDT

    •  I would love to boo him

      hopefully, I have to travel too far to see him.

      by unterhausen on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM PDT

  •  It is about his ego. Pure selfishness

    Dude didn't get his way. John Edwards didn't win the nomination. I was disappointed in that, too. I have to get over it, because the alternative is so much worse. It's a coalition. A community. We have to work together, not just go our own way, if we don't get our way.

    Perhaps, HE doesn't understand this as a purely selfish and egotistical act, but then he is desperately deluded.

    by FischFry on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:32:17 AM PDT

    •  And why

      does The Media continue to indulge this, again?

      This guy running for POTUS is not news anymore.  

      by o the umanity on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:34:38 AM PDT

•  Good for Ralph!

  callenge the status quo!

  by tcandew on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:15:17 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for 8 years of Bush, Ralph nt

    by blue armadillo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:17:28 AM PDT

    •  Why don't you just go after all the

      traitors who voted for him <-/snark>. Surely the framers of the constitution could never have fathomed that there would ever be three main candidates running for President.  

      by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:22:04 AM PDT

      •  I have no problem with serious candidates

        and third parties (or more!)

        But while his vanity campaigns do not seriously affect the issues the major party candidates address, they do siphon votes from the Democrats.  The result was Bush being able to squeeze a few extra votes from Florida and take the election in 2000.  Close enought that Nader's voters, by not voting for Gore, helped hand that election to the GOP.
        How's that worked out for all of us?

        by blue armadillo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:01:33 AM PDT

        •  Well, Bush as President hasn't worked out well

          for the country at all. By your logic, we should then discourage everyone else from running for the office because he screwed it up, too, right?

          by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:12:04 AM PDT

          •  I SAID I have no problem with multiple candidates

            ...but people that are simply vanity candidates are part of the problem, not a useful solution. Nader is not stupid, but vain.

            He not only screwed it up then, he continues to do so.

            by blue armadillo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:34:27 AM PDT

            •  Vain? I could care less if a candidate

              enjoys looking at him or herself in the mirror or listening to his voice on tape (as long as he doesn't fall in the water).

              What's your point? Please give examples for why you think he screwed up by exercising his constitutional right to run for President.

              by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:50:13 AM PDT

    •  How's your Tweedele Dee Tweedle Dum

      working for you now, Nader people?  How many lives were sacrificed so that you could feel pure?

      by Bluesman48 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:31:23 AM PDT

•  I dunno...

  I'm for Obama, but listening to Nader on MTP, he's got some good points.

  Says if the Democrats can't win this year, they need to hang it up. REALLY slamming Bush and McCain.

  I wish he hadn't run, don't get me wrong. But I seriously doubt he's going to depress the Obama vote, and he's talking pretty sharp.

  by Fishgrease on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:15:55 AM PDT

  •  Nader realizes that Obama will win handily....

    The only way he comes into play, and he knows it, is if the superdelegates give us a McCain/Clinton matchup in the general.

    He basically said today that if the Democrats run a halfway decent campaign, they'll win in a landslide.

    by cometman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:34:51 AM PDT

•  there are multiple diaries on this already

  how many diaries do we need?

  by plf515 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:16:25 AM PDT

  •  This diary is REALLY about the last poll option.

    by idea hamster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:17:24 AM PDT

  •  About as many of these

    as Obama, Edwards, Clinton diaries.  

    by dkmich on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:42:24 AM PDT

•  I think there have been about a 150 BREAKING

  Ralph Nader is running diaries in the past 24 hours. Get a hold on yourself, people, and read the diaries posted directly in front of your own.

  by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:16:32 AM PDT

  •  You expect me

    to read all 150 of those?

    Or place all my comments about this in one large comment?

    I don't care...I'm working on my own right now.

    by Soundpolitic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:26:08 AM PDT

    •  Look. When a diary says BREAKING, you

      read it- that's what the title BREAKING is for, duh.

      It's never to late to go back and read all of them- do that now. It might help you later when composing your own BREAKING diary.  Rest assured, when you are finished reading them all, you will not be the only one  with a front page BREAKING Nader is running diary.

      by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:32:38 AM PDT

      •  I don't recall using "BREAKING" anywhere....

        by idea hamster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:34:07 AM PDT

        •  Time to update your title, then.

           

          by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:36:48 AM PDT

          •  Huh? Change it to what?

            Should I have called it, "Old news, but please read this anyway"?

            The title is "F.U. Nader (w/poll)" -- exactly representative of the contents.

            Not "BREAKING," not even "NADER'S RUNNING" or anything that suggests that you don't know that Nader's running.

            I'm sorry if I'm being thick, but I don't get your original criticism or your last post.

            Am I missing something?

            by idea hamster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:43:17 AM PDT

•  Yeah, But in 2000 ...

  ... there was "no difference" between Gore and Bush!

  No difference!

  So I guess ...

  Gore would have invaded Iraq!
  Gore would have refused to accept the scientific reality that is global climate change!
  Gore would have appointed Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court!
  Gore would have turned running massive deficits into an art form!

  Either that or St. Ralph has a raging case of narcissism.  Gee, I wonder which it could be?

  by Collideascope on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:16:43 AM PDT

  •  And an extension of that ...

    He says he's not in this to win - just wants to be heard.

    But then he refused to answer the ultimate question, who would he most like to see in the White House?  Ideals, process, new alternative, blah blah blah blah blah

    If he isn't running to win it, and he doesn't care who does win, then he's essentially admitting that his sole role is a spoiler.

    by winstnsmth on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:23:05 AM PDT

    •  Entirely based on your comment,

      Spoiler isn't the point, pointless is the point.

      There is also much in Nader to be respected.

      by dkmich on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:25:12 AM PDT

•  Ralph, I choo-choo-choose you!

  
  By azizhp at 2008-02-24

  I don't think Ralph "It tastes like Voting" Nader is going to have a measurable impact on the race. It's Nader's Nadir.

  by azizhp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:17:00 AM PDT

  •  Be careful, if the Simpsons endorse him,

    the race is over.

    by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:19:06 AM PDT

•  Nader has been "running for president"

  since 1992. This isn't real news.

  by oceanstar17 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:17:12 AM PDT

  •  Actually, I think it is real news. I just

    don't think it's surprising.

    by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:18:12 AM PDT

    •  Harold Stassen

      Didn't Harold Stassen keep running year after year? The Republicans mainly ignored him after awhile.
      

      by Webster Hubble Telescope on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:31:52 AM PDT

      •  Why doesn't Nader go after

        Republican voters? No offense to Nader, but these people seem very easy to dupe.

        by FudgeFighter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:38:46 AM PDT

•  I guess Obama's

  Veiled insults got to him yesterday?

  by zreeb on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:18:30 AM PDT

  •  He didn't insult him.

    He pointed out how Ralph takes disagreement on any issue to be tantamount to war.

    I am a Nader fan and I still think that is a fair assessment. Nader is the epitome of Obama's critique of the past generation fighting the wars of the 60s ad infinitum. That is a fair observation from Obama.

    by Common Cents on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:27:26 AM PDT

•  I'll say this for him

  He talks a good talk.  And his website kicks ass.

  by winstnsmth on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:18:59 AM PDT

  •  What dems are afraid of is

    He says exactly what they are afraid to say. He has been consistent for all these years and if dems can get off their high horse and listen carefully and adopt his policies then the party would really be progressive.

    by gabie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:23:25 AM PDT

    •  Or maybe they don't all agree?

      Maybe you can be progressive and not agree with Nader's viewpoint on every little thing?

      I think what Nader's purification system does is shrink a party when parties should be expanded to account for those that disagree on certain things. Necessarily in a democracy there are disagreements. The key is compromise something that Ralph Nader is unwilling to do.

      Again, I think Ralph Nader is an awesome advocate for the people. He is just too militant and fundamentalist at times.

      by Common Cents on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:29:35 AM PDT

    •  I've been waiting for this issue..

      Why does Nader continue to run? Why does the Green Party do so well?  Why do progressives choose a third party candidate over the Democratic nominee election after election?

      The answer came out to me when I went to re-check one ofhe links in my signature - the Political Compass.  

      There's a link there showing the candidates in the primaries this year and their place on the chart.  Check this out:
      
      If Nader and David Cobb were on this chart, they'd be further down in the corner than Gravel and Kucinich.  This is what those couple million progressives are voting for - their conscience and their politics which doesn't reside in the top right box.

      by Scoopster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:33:30 AM PDT

      •  So does this mean you are going to vote Nader?

        I wonder, how many progressive votes is this going to bleed from Barack Obama?

        I'm not trying to be rude to you- I just have a feeling that it's going to be a place that people who are disappointed about the primaries can put their vote and feel that they have done something useful, when if Nader was not on the ballot, they might be more inclined to vote Dem.

        by kate mckinnon on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:56:19 AM PDT

        •  I haven't decided

          I voted for Edwards after he got out of the race. THAT WAS MY CHOICE! get it? My choice, noone is the boss of me. I can make up my own mind and no amount of bullying can change that. Are dems sheep just like the repuks? Thank God I live in America and can vote how I choose whether it is counted or not I can't control but at least I can vote my conscience.

          by gabie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:48:19 AM PDT

          •  yep you certainly can choose

            to fuck us all hard.  absolutely, that's America.

            by kate mckinnon on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM PDT

            •  Not trying to be rude?

              Could've fooled me.  Your other comment was much more mature.

              by Scoopster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM PDT

        •  I will vote for Obama.

          I've already said I plan to vote Green if Hillary gets the nomination, but that would change if Nader is their nominee.  His heart is in the right place, but in my opinion he's too old and too egotistical for the job.

          Personally I think Obama will to move a lot towards that center point in the graph, possibly close to where Edwards sits.  Like most of us, I don't think Political Compass has seen enough of Obama to place him so far to the right.

          by Scoopster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM PDT

  •  I won't ever look at it

    So, I won't know if it kicks ass, or not. Rakph Nader has become Lyndon Larouche, except that his candidacy can make a difference -- just not in a good way, mind you.

    He cannot make a positive contribution by running, so why is he doing it? Fucking ego. He doesn't like the Democratic candidate? SO what? Most of us don't end up with the Democratic nominee we wanted. IT's a fucking coalition. You don't go your own way, just because you don't get your own way. That's fucking ego -- it's selfish, plain and simple. NOthing remotely high-minded about it.

    by FischFry on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:29:18 AM PDT

    •  If Nader found Edwards' positions congenial,

      why didn't he lift a finger to support Edwards and help get these positions taken seriously? Where was Ralph earlier this year when we really needed more voices speaking out on social justice issues?

      Or does Ralph simply care more about his own delusions of grandeur?

      by LanceBoyle on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:50:22 AM PDT

      •  He's a publicity whore

        He waits a month to announce, when he can get on Meet the Press? He's the biggest, shallowest media whore of all.

        by FischFry on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:33:41 AM PDT

•  Nader is a frign egomaniac

  of COURSE he'll run. He'll do anything to get his face  on TV. But I think if he gets .00000002 percent of the vote, he'll be lucky.

  I'm not an Obama supporter...I'm still for Hill..BUT- both of them, separately or together, are much more credible candidates than the Nader nadir.

  & BTW, I'll vote for Obama - gladly - if he gets the nomination. I hope he doesn't take on that cocky Nader attitude, tho.

  by Lynwaz on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:19:34 AM PDT

  •  Look at Nader in 2004

    I know some people can't let go of blaming Nader for 2000 (especially Florida), but there were plenty of (black urban) Florida voters that were caged, not to mention Republican shenanigans across the country - and that little Supreme Court decision.

    In 2004, Nader pulled a whopping 0.38% of the vote.  My opinion is he won't do any better this time (unless he siphons moderate Republicans - if any are left). 2004 results: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Please save your indignation/fear/rendering-of-garments for the Republican KOTV (Keep Out The Votes) efforts this Fall.

    by Habitat Vic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:44:04 AM PDT

•  Barack Obama said it best yesterday.

  Ralph Nader is a heroic figure. His only problem is that he deems others unworthy if they disagree with him. It might turn out that you can actually have a policy disagreement and not be "pro-corporate" as he called Obama today.

  However, Ralph Nader is a good man and shouldn't be torn down.

  by Common Cents on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:23:39 AM PDT

•   a career nadir

  what a shame. I voted for the guy in 1996(primary) and 2000. But whoa...please, take a seat Ralph.

  by el vasco on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:33:47 AM PDT

•  Ignore Nader.

  Don't let him spoil 08.

  by Executive Odor on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:35:57 AM PDT

•  At least I have somebody to vote for if HRC is

  the Democratic nominee:)

  by fgilbert2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:36:47 AM PDT

  •  anyone who says this is a pinhead

    hope you enjoy McCain for the next 8 years

    by pacific ocean park on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:41:00 AM PDT

    •  Geez, I thought there was an election in 2012

      and at least Mccain won't garnish my wages because I can't afford health insurance

      by fgilbert2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:55:16 AM PDT

•  I just heard RN on Meet the Press,

  and although I pray he does not FU the election, the issues of which he speaks, i.e., health care, the growing failure of America's regulatory oversight of matters that years ago were assumed to be in America's best interests, are real and must be addressed. If RN serves as a force to keep America focused on the matters and issues that must be addressed, he may/could be a force of good. However, to the extent RN attempts to marginalize Obama or the the progressives' attempts to elect an electable leader to implement change, then in that event, RN's legacy will be as a tragic figure.

  by brjzn on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:38:15 AM PDT

  •  "Tragic" doesn't quite cut it, if it means

    4 more years in Iraq and countless more lives.

    by chicago DEM on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:45:04 AM PDT

•  Somebody really needs to cream pie his face

  I really doubt anyone will take him seriously after 2000. If they do vote for him, they are probably tree-sitting granola smokers with their head up their asses.

  by pacific ocean park on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:38:27 AM PDT

•  More Nader Diaries

  that you can post on if you desire

  F.U. Nader (w/poll)
  by idea hamster

  44 comments (4 new)
  Nader: I'm In
  by arubyan

  96 comments (96 new)
  Nader Announes...What Now?
  by comeinpbrstreetgang

  54 comments (54 new)
  Here we go again
  by Chris Ortolano

  14 comments (13 new)
  BREAKING: Nader is running
  by billybam

  192 comments (192 new)

  by crazyshirley2100 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:38:55 AM PDT

•  Our Man - Photographed

  

  by fstlicho on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:45:43 AM PDT

•  GOP funded? screw him. (nt)

  by cacamp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:47:46 AM PDT

•  I heard him speak

  I saw the movie "An Unreasonable Man" and heard Ralph speak afterwards.  He said that he offered to end his run for president if the Democrats adopted 3 very reasonable items from his platform and the Dems refused.  Yet the Democrats blame Nader for stealing the election.  

  by realtime on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:49:59 AM PDT

•   Nader Endorses McCain

  Ralph "The Egotist" Nader will only serve one purpose, to allow for the split of the Democratic vote and allow for a plurality to continues us down this current insane path. Democrats all across the country are throwing bricks at their TV, while Republicans are cheering with joy.

  ANYONE who votes for Nader just may as well pull the McCain lever, it means the same thing. And ANYONE who thinks other than that is simply not living in the real world.

  I will be very curious to see his FEC reports. He will be funded, and funded well, By The Rovian right and other surrogates.

  What little respect I had for that man, and all he has done to make this world a better place, is gone, and gone for good!

  Flash
  Centrisity

  by anokaflash on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:55:42 AM PDT

•  Nader is the choice for Fellow Travelers

  by Paul Goodman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:57:46 AM PDT

•  Nader is persona non grata

  These days, Ralph Nader is about as politically relevant as a Tide detergent commercial. I could care less what he thinks.

  On that note, I'm going to start a load of laundry now.

  by pine on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:21:36 AM PDT

•  GO RALPH!

  I've found my candidate.  I'm voting for Ralph Nader.  

  by Support Civil Liberty on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:33:13 AM PDT

•  I met Nader once

  Years ago Nader spoke at my law school.  I found him to be overly impressed with himself.  He is better than we mere mortals.  Just ask him.

  by Jeffrey Kohan on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:38:06 AM PDT

•  Nader is irrelevant unless Hillary is nominated

  which is looking less and less likely.

  The only way an Obama victory makes sense is for it to be the result of a wave of support, with a much larger margin than we have seen in the past several presidential elections. Even if Nader gets his 2% again, that won't matter if Obama wins by 5% or 10%.

  It also will marginalize Nader's issues; they will be lost in the noise.

  If Hillary wins the nomination, then Nader might well give the election to the GOP. I think there are probably lots of people right here on dKos that will vote for Nader against Hillary Clinton, even in states where it will matter. A GOP victory would be absolutely disastrous, and obviously would set back Nader's agenda even more.

  So, for Nader, as I see it, by running he will either marginalize his issues even more than they are now, or set them back considerably. If he didn't run, but instead used his name recognition to support, say, Obama, then he would have a much greater chance of advancing his agenda.

  So, I think he's a fool to run again.

  Greg Shenaut

  by gshenaut on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:50:24 AM PDT

•  Wow! Some Progressives!

  Wow.

  Clearly, Ralph Nader is to the "democratic" party, as Hillary Clinton is to the "republican" party.

  A punching bag for unfounded, unfiltered, and really hurtful words/emotions.

  "selfish," "asshole," "Arrogant," "egomaniac," "non factor," "clown," "eye sore," "obstructionist,"

  Wow. Either I've walked into the FreeRepublic discussion boards, or Kossaks have crossed the line between decency and the Republican Party.

  Like Ralph said, if you don't win in a landslide this election, its completely ON YOU!

  by Grieving Father on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:00:13 AM PDT