The comment "dude is so tragically unfunny he is mistaken for a comedian" is meant about the poseur Andy Borowitz, and not about the honorable Ralph Nader.

I woke up today understanding why I get worked up about you who are worked up about Nader, and realized the problem I have with the "Nader Haters". The haters are actually making TWO arguments- one justifiable and (to a certain extent) fair, and another that's, frankly, appalling.

If you're disgusted by people who voted for Nader in 2000, I'll oppose you- but you aren't unreasonable, any more than I'm unreasonable when criticizing Bush voters.

However, the Nader Haters aren't (only) angry with Nader voters- they're angry with NADER, for not dropping out entirely.

And that is, as I said, appalling. It should offend anyone who truly believes in Democracy.

Nader Haters cite Nader's 97,488 Florida votes as evidence that, if Nader weren't "a megalomaniac", he'd have withdrawn. But this is actually evidence of the OPPOSITE point. 2,882,955 people voted for Nader because they TRULY WANTED TO. Many knew he couldn't win, and STILL voted. Saying that Nader should have quit (thereby taking away his supporters' ability to vote for him) is advocating the wholesale disenfranchisement of 97,488 voters (in one state alone) whose choice was Nader. How can anyone who truly believes in America as a democracy advocate this? If today's primary weren't so close, and Clintonites said Obama should drop out so as not to cost her African-American voters, we'd (rightly) be horrified. How is this different?

As for the assertion that "he couldn't win," fine- I'll concede. But you're forgetting that Nader didn't run independently- he ran with the Green Party- andd many voted for the man in the hope that votes would keep the Greens on state ballots for future elections (which, of course, worked in many cases) actually giving us a small chance to build a viable third party. Is that ALSO, somehow, "a betrayal"?
Nader Haters apparently feel that it is "right" to take away voters' choices if it's "for our own good". Even if Nader dropped out and received 97,000 write-in votes people would still characterize him as a villain. So what's the truth? Are you for democracy or aren't you?

It is really tragic to me how Nader's run divides people into two camps that are both not constructive. One group encourages him to just run within our broken election system, which does have poor consequences often. The other encourages him not to run, which is a travesty in a democracy. Both miss the crucial point - we need to reform the election system so third parties can run without even the potential for "spoiling".

Spoiler-free elections are very possible with reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting, Range Voting, Approval Voting and others. Virtually any system is better than our current plurality system which is undemocratic and limits voters' choices. And people are working to implement these better systems throughout the nation. Instead of bickering about whether Nader should run, let's all support those working to make it so we don't even need this debate to happen anymore in America.

The saddest part of this whole story, however, is that Nader himself has failed, over and over again, when asked about "spoiling," to bring attention to this issue. His being asked repeatedly about "spoiling" could be a teachable moment for our democracy and a great recruiting moment for election reform. Nader should be the nation's most outspoken advocate for Instant Runoff Voting. Yet, again and again, he says nothing.

We need to refocus this debate and channel the energy into campaigns for IRV, support for groups like Fairvote, and we need to pressure Ralph that if he takes this issue on as a primary cause, we will support him, and if he doesn't, we won't.

More on this issue at http://www.systemsthinker.com/blog/2007/12/an-unreasonable-man/

I hope you'll check it out and get in touch.

Just my speculation from the sidelines: IF Romney wins the GOP nomination, Bloomberg will not be able to resist the fight of the almighty dollars. If nothing else, it'll be terribly interesting.

IF Hillary wins the Democratic nomination - Nader is in. His mission is to destroy the old guard of the Democratic party. Which, by the way, will be the worse thing to happen to the GOP.

Yep, that's right. The worse thing that could happen to the GOP will be the destruction of the old donkey.

Clearly the two-party system does not work. It does not work in our legislature. It does not work in our electoral process.

And it sure as heck does not work for the best interests of the American people.

Why is it I have no problem commenting on 99% of the topics here, but nothing I write on Andy Borowitz's blogs ever seems to get through? I'm hardly "abusive."

Nader needs 10 million dollars to launch his campaign. I am sure some rich Republican will fund him. Maybe a Bloomberg candidacy would offset any damage Nader might do by drawing votes from the Republicans. Bloomberg can finance his own campaign. Hell...maybe Bloomberg will finance Nader's campaign just to have an excuse to get in the game himself.

nader is just sad, he has no concern for the nation, he just wants to be in front of a camera one more time. ralph, find a photo-mat and leave us be

Nader, go take a nap. Guiliani will will bunk with you until Jan. 20, 2009.

You are irrelevant; don't waste people's time.

Why not. As long as we're piling up tired '60s soldiers who are sullying their own reputations forever.

So many democracy haters/cor­poratocrac­y lovers who think that burning to death is better than drowning--you still end up dead.

There you have it. A report about Ralph Nader and all the DLC-drugged-up centrists come out in force.

Face it whiners...they reason Democrats keep losing national elections one after another is that the party has strayed from its historic left-wing roots.

Blame Ralph Nader all you want. Whine, Cry, Piss your pants, but the fact remains that running candidates as "centrist" "GOP-lite" alternatives ensures that you'll lose every single time.

Hell, even my Red state Democratic family members are ALL ready to accept John McCain as the next president because the Democratic party is so dominated by K-Street Pimps.

Keep it up Democrats. You've already passed the point of relevance and you're staring into oblivion.

Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney absolutely have a right to run and people absolutely have the right to try and break open the two-party system.

They will only get enough votes to deny Clinton or Obama the election if they make the same mistake that Gore and the DLC made in their failed triangulation strategy. As long as Clinton and Obama remember to rally the base while reaching out to the middle, they'll be fine. If they run against their base, then they are in trouble.

Triangulation is a losing strategy.

Also, if the past is any guide, the neoconservatives will do whatever they have to win the next election to hold onto power. Either Clinton or Obama will have to fight before, during and after the election.

Blaming Ralph Nader for 2000 makes some Democrats feel better, but it prevents us from learning the right lessons of that year.

Given that the option is an extension of the 17year run of Billary and Bush or a nutjob named McCain...
I am an Independant. The Dems and the GOP assume that I will vote Dem. As if I would support Nancy P and the utter failure of this congress to do anything but reinforce the failures of the last one.
Pelosi has told the Administration that they can continue merrily along with their crimes, they won't be held accountable...
I would vote a spoiler at this point just to give both parties the finger since its obvious that my vote and yours won't even matter with the new voting machines...

Nadar didn't get the memo.

We hate you! Go away!

Ah yes, nothing like a Nader article to bring out the rage and venom of establishment fat cat DLC Democrats.

Rather than believe their lies and slander against Nader (which I regrettably did for years) maybe you should figure this one out for yourselves.

Don't believe me.....and don't believe the despicable paid DLC shills here who would have you believe that Nader is the anti-Christ.

The simple truth is that Nader would NOT be running now (or in 2000 or 2004) or ever if it wasn't for the war funding, Bush enabling neocon scum who have infiltrated the Democratic party and turned it into Repuke-lite.

Nader said in 2000......

"the lesser of two evils philosophy, merely allows the two parties to get more evil every four years"

Do you see this happening? I do.

Check out this great film which has loads of establishment Democrats trying to nail Nader to the cross, along with Nader lovers, and those who are on the fence.....a balanced look.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unreasonableman/film.html

A good review of the film here....

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/review-an-unreasonable-man.php

Nader is no savior, and no villain. But he will be a factor this year so you may as well take a look and make up YOUR OWN MIND as to what he represents for you.

Or just listen to the Pelosi loving DLC scum who seem to have more hate for Ralph than they do for Bush and the Repukes.