Ralphing

It's hard to believe, I know, but there is now an entire generation of 20- and 30-something Americans who don't know that Ralph Nader wasn't always a total a**hole. And yet, despite the stupefying narcissism and destructive potential of Nader's 2008 presidential bid, there's one important issue raised by his independent race that a legitimate fear of his candidacy's consequences, or a well-earned contempt for his arrogance, should not be allowed to obscure.

By now we are used to politicians and public figures who use the presidential campaign cycle to build equity and raise fees for their Brand That Is Me (Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, Rudy Giuliani); to act out their messianic delusions on a national stage (Ross Perot, Mike Gravel, Fred Thompson); to audition for the demagogic hall of fame (Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and an asterisk for Lou Dobbs, who still seems to be flirting with it).

Nader, of course, says he's different. (He also says that he didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 election -- "this bit about 'spoiler' is really very astonishing," he told Tim Russert -- which puts something of a ceiling on the credibility of anything else he says.) Nader contends that the good he did in that race was to pull Gore's positions to the left. It's a role that John Edwards (though not Dennis Kucinich -- go figure) is credited for playing in the 2008 primaries. And now Nader, who skipped the primaries, says that his third-party race will inject into the fall campaign issues like single-payer health insurance, labor law reform, Pentagon waste, corporate crime, "the illegal occupation of Palestine," and impeachment -- issues he says Clinton, Obama, and McCain have taken off the table.

I don't doubt that there's a portion of the American electorate that agrees more with Nader on some of those issues than they do with anyone the Republicans or Democrats will put on the ballot. Hell, I'm one of them. Just to pick one topic: I think the unwillingness of the Congress to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for carpet-bombing our system of checks and balances, and for replacing the rule of law with the tyranny of despots, has not only been a craven capitulation to White House fear-mongering; it has also staggeringly misread the political mood and core values of the American people. And I hold Clinton, Obama (and even McCain 1.0, the maverick), along with their colleagues, responsible for sweeping the ashes of our Constitution under the rug.

But despite Nader's wishful thinking, we don't have a parliamentary system. Any votes he attracts will be drained from the Democratic nominee and conceivably cost an Electoral College victory; they will not result in a new government being forced to enter into a coalition with his supporters. Nor, I think, will his presence in the race reframe the issues, refocus the choices, or push the envelope of the campaign. Even though I may agree with him on, say, single-payer, I could live with criteria for getting into a fall presidential debate that turned out to exclude him.

What troubles me, though, and what his bid throws a spotlight on, is how hard it is for anyone in America to shape the national conversation on anything. One way or another, it takes big money -- the fortune to run for office, the cash to buy full-page ads in newspapers, the bankroll to own a network, the marketing budget to create a celebrity's star power. Markets move mass media. In the internet age, almost any idea can find an audience somewhere, but to win MSM airplay and a seat at the table, that audience's numbers have to be big enough to constitute a politically potent special interest or infotainment freakshow fan club, not just a narrowcast alternative niche or a responsibly dissenting viewpoint.

It's a shame that to get five minutes of the nation's civic attention, a person has to either be a billionaire, or to raise and spend a billion of other people's dollars, or to do something as potentially lethal the country's ultimate well-being as to mount a quixotic run for president. Maybe we already possess the communications technology for a modern-day Tom Paine to reframe the national political debate without at the same time landing another George W. Bush in the White House. The irony is that the candidate most likely to focus on the barriers to success standing in the way of that technology -- the concentrated, corporate control of the media -- is the same Ralph Nader whose presence in the race may turn out to cast the darkest shadow on its outcome.

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[UrbanInterloper]

Nader will be nearly irrelevant this election cycle, not just because his declining share of votes from 2000 to 2004 suggest it will be so, but also because voters this election cycle have shown an unprecented level of excitment for their candidates (except perhaps for McCain). An historic terrorist attack on U.S. soil, five bloody years in Iraq, secret prisons, torture, soaring deficits, soaring healthcare costs, soaring gas costs, and real declining incomes do a lot to focus the minds of voters and make 2008 nothing like 2000, when all seemed lovey-dove­y-surplusy in the U.S. I repeat: Nader will be mostly irrelevant.

Furthermore, Nader's chosen vehicle for his advocacy, a presidential campaign, has proven itself to be horribly ineffective. Twice. It's a top-down, I-know-best model of change that functions a lot like Clinton's failed strategy this year. (And without her celebrity status, he won't get anywhere near as far as she has). He should build his base of support first, then run headlong into the future.

If Nader's serious about creating real change, and I believe he is, he must change tactics. A better role model for him, ironically, is Al Gore. Create a name for yourself that is synonymous with your cause a la Gore = global warming. Just look how successful a person can be outside of national politics to really the focus the nation and the government (indeed the world) on an important cause. I mean, where the hell has Nader been for the past 3.5 years? If he really wants to change this country, he should be sticking his face in ours constantly, reminding us of who he is and why he cares so much for these things.

He talks about impeachment--great idea! Wouldn't he have been so much more effective at making hearings happen had he dedicated himself to NOTHING but the cause of impeachment for the past several years? I mean, Palestine's been in the same pickle for 60 years now, and corporate crime and government waste aren't exactly going anywhere or facing immiment deadlines, but Bush/Cheney leave office in 2008. If you're gonna impeach 'em, you'd better get started. Imagaine, Ralph Nader: the national face of Bush/Cheney's impeachment from the day Iraq was invaded in 2003. Imagine how much coverage on Bill O'Reilly that would have gotten, and how much Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck and Limbaugh would have had their veins popping, all of which would have dutifully been picked up by every other national media outlet and transmitted across America. Now *that* could have really been something amazing to watch.

Oh well, too late. Guess it's time to pull out the ol' presidential candidate costume from the trunk from the attic and dust it off...so sad.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Why don't you read about what Ralph Nader has done "outside of national politics." Another historically challenged American.

Nader has been in people's faces the last 3.5 years. The media ignore him. When Nader first made a name for himself the news media were in the business of news. Now, with ownership by Fortune 500 corporations and consolidation of media ownership and the conflicts of interest this creates voices like Nader's and Kucinich's are not permitted to be heard.

Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it wasn't said.

[UrbanInterloper]

I, in fact, did hear from Nader a few times over the past few years on places like Democracy Now! (excellent source for news, btw, probably the best in the nation). I also get mailings directly from the guy and from his group, Public Citizen. I never watch TV news and I read the mainstream press seldom if at all (usually through links from places like HuffPost, which is also very mainstream - one of the biggest political sites on the net).

The reality is that Nader's not been effective at getting his message out to the mainstream, and that's what matters here. If Nader can say it's Gore's own fault for losing the election in 2000, Nader must also accept responsibility for his own political failures.

I'm not celebrating what I see as Nader's tactical shortcomings, but the media is the media--it sucks and he rightly criticizes it--but what else is news? The media is a reality he needs to contend with and overcome, or somehow bypass. Either build something as an alternative like HuffPost or find a way to communicate directly to the populace (hello? email, youtube, social networking­...). I'm not saying he hasn't tried to create a movement, I'm saying he hasn't succeeded. Even Kucinich has been more successful with the grassroots! It's good to be right about things, but he needs to find a way for his message to reach critical mass. So far, he hasn't.

I think the best way to start would be to pick one single issue (I suggested impeachment as a missed opportunity) and hammer it home. Become a raving fanatic about it, stay on message, and the rest will follow. Otherwise, his causes will never get the attention they deserve.

And I do know and admire Nader's accomplishment outside of politics. All I'm saying to him is, what have you done lately?

[antirepublocrat]

"One way or another, it takes big money -- the fortune to run for office, the cash to buy full-page ads in newspapers, the bankroll to own a network, the marketing budget to create a celebrity's star power. Markets move mass media. In the internet age, almost any idea can find an audience somewhere, but to win MSM airplay and a seat at the table, that audience's numbers have to be big enough to constitute a politically potent special interest or infotainment freakshow fan club, not just a narrowcast alternative niche or a responsibly dissenting viewpoint.­"

No, Ron Paul's campaign has shown that even big money won't buy you a seat at the table. And when it comes to politics, markets do NOT move mass media. Just the opposite, it's the mass media that selects the players. There's no question that most Democratic voters agree with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich on the issues, from health care to Iraq to foreign policy. But that mass audience was not enough to get them a hearing. The media had already chosen the players and with constant repetition and sound-bites convinced the electorate that 1) neither Kucinich nor Gravel (nor Richardson for that matter) had any chance of getting the nomination and 2) there were significant differences between Obama/Clin­ton/Edward­s on the issues (NOT) and that to have any effect on policies people would have to choose the one of those three who most closely aligned with their views. It's a case of "lesser of two evils" migrating from the general down to the primary election.

Voters have got to get over picking the least bad of the annointed candidates and start picking the best candidate according to the individual voter's own criteria, both in the primary and general election. Until voters do that, the corporate elites will ALWAYS choose our leaders for us.

[littleblackcat]

antirepublocrat, you have this in one. I would have liked very much to see some good debates JUST BETWEEN Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, with maybe one session with John Edwards. The media hopped on the bus of "History in the Making!!!" race between a BLACK man and a WOMAN and the truly best candidates got shoved out. We need to keep an eagle eye on what the repus are doing, because they will be pulling strings behind the scenes to keep control over this once-fabulous and now-ruined nation.

[haveaheart]

Many here do understand the smear this is of Ralph Nader --- but Kaplan and this kind of
article are why I've pretty much abandoned the Huffington website.

Ironically, we have people picking up propaganda which alternately labels Nader as a "Republican" and a "Communist" ---

Unfortunately, I don't have a link right now to Nader's 2000 Platform which was entirely his own creation --- it's an amazing piece of work -- and encompasses ALL that this nation needs to reach true democracy and true economic democracy.

[LuckyBlessed]

Someone needs to convince Ron Paul to run in the general election. As a longtime political junkie, politics was sport in my family,former speech and debate captain, former canvasser/field manager and as a poly sc major--- one of the best interviews I've ever seen was Ron Paul on Meet the Press. View the fouth one on You Tube in particular when he starts to discuss fascism coming to this country drapped in a flag and carrying a cross. The very end of he puts the situation of this country in crystal clear language I think any common folk could understand. Paul, Obama, McCain, and Nader in a debate, NOW THAT WOULD BE FUN!!!

[cfinhollywood]

I am an Obama supporter and what he needs to do is take Nader seriously. Everyone always dismisses him and rails against him and it never stops him, and he just whittles away at the votes. Nader should be treated just like a real candidate, and be made to answer the tough questions just like anybody else. (Where's your plan for the economy, Mr. Nader?) This, more than anything will make clear how insignificant he is in the real world of electoral politics. That being said, the issues he raises are very important, and Obama and Clinton would do well to think about and respond to them in a serious way. That's the only way to negate his effect on this election.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

What you suggest is the LAST thing Obama and the Democrats want. Nader will blow their cover and reveal them for the Republican Lite party they really are. That's why Kucinich was kept out of the debates. These people hold a mirror to the "serious" candidates and they don't like waht they see.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"I am an Obama supporter and what he needs to do is take Nader seriously.­"

IN YOUR DREAMS! And in mine, I might add.

Yesterday, Nader was on the Talk of the Nation radio program. Someone asked him the question about why he doesn't just "work with the Democrats.­" He said that he has been trying to get meetings with Clinton, Edwards, AND Obama for several months. He said that none of them would meet with him. That speaks volumes.

Lest you think this is something new, his shut-Nader-out mindset pervaded the Democrats in 2000 as well. Remember how Gore wouldn't lift a finger to bring Nader into the debates?

I support the Green Party, and voted for Nader proudly in 2000 and also in 1996. Even though I won't be supporting him this year, I hope that all of you Democrats will take a hard look at the "progressive" candidates from whom you will be making your final choice.

[llp1]

Nader is running because he wants to bring the issues he knows are the most important to Americans to the forefront. He feels that the three remaining contenders have backed away from their principles and are too enmeshed in the broken system of Washington politics. While he could draw votes away from the Democratic nominee (which will likely be Obama), this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will keep Obama's feet to the fire and force him to give us more substance, be more specific, answer more questions, and provide more transparency on his record and qualifications for the Presidency. Obama should feel challenged and should embrace the opportunity to EARN our votes, instead of just gaining them on superficial rhetoric. If Obama is as good as he claims to be, Nader shouldn't be a hindrance, he should enhance Obama's campaign. If, however, Obama cannot win with Nader in the race, then perhaps Obama isn't the right person to lead the party or the country.

[cowgirlblues]

well said,Nader is not going to lose the election for obama or hillary, the bad feelings by voters on both sides of this fight will in the end be the downfall of the democratic candidate. the problem is perfectly displayed by the discourse on the blogs, I would be very embarrassed if i were the candidate of CHANGE and HOPE and read what my supporters write.

[haveaheart]

FIRST . . . it's corporate-media, not MSM --

SECOND . . . when we look at the right-wing's ability to SWIFTBOAT people, like Kerry over th epast years, we have to look at the public's role in this, high in gullibility!!

And that gullibility is evident here as so many do not question the SWIFTBOATING of Nader!

It's intended to distract you from what what really happened in 2000 and the fact that the Democrats have still done nothing about 2000, nor 2002, nor 2004, nor 2006!!!

Elections steals began in the mid-1960's ...
Two reporters --- Jim & Ken Collier -- caught up with it pretty much immeidately and wrote a book -- VOTESCAM - The Stealing of America --- which was suppressed. You can read or scan the book and read the story of their investigations at a website the family has kept going ---

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[haveaheart]

Marty Kaplan
"Ralphing"

I've just finished being totally astonished at a website poster who was complaining that all Nader does is "repeat the Kucinich Platform" . . . !!! So sadly ironic because he had no idea that there is nothing either Kucinich nor Edwards has said that Nader hasn't said 30 years or more earlier!

And, it's a CRIME -- not a "shame" that in order to run for office or to buy corporate-media time you have to be a billionaire or use "OP" billions.

Howard Dean in 2004 raised money from the public via the internet in his "Tom Paine" appeal which --- you may recall --- was undercut not only by the GOP, but by the corporate-media --- and by the Democrats,­themselves who didn't want his non-corporate competition. In fact, the DLC is still at war with Howard Dean!

Let me also remind you that Gore/LIEBERMANN won in 2000 no matter how you count the votes.
That the smearing of Nader seeks to submerge that reality --- and the reality that the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush --
with some additional help by his GOP fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Campaign HQs which successfully stopped the vote counting!!!

The Demcrats did nothing about any of this then . . . and they've done nothing about any of this since then.

Neither of the Democratic candidates supports single-payer health care.

I'd also encourage you to look at the comprehensive and mind-blowing platform that Rralph Nader ran on in 2000! It's astonishing!!

Take a look at Democrats and their role in these election steals --- and open your eyes.

[PigLipstick]

Thank you for your response to just another hit piece from the corporate Democrats of the DLC. Kaplan is obviously signed on as a corporate Democrat attack dog, much like those right-wing minions that have been spreading half truths and rumor all over the blogs for the last seven years.

I've been blasting the Democrat Senators who are affiliated with the DLC (Democrat Leadership Council) for several years. These are the same people who have consistantly sided with the GOP and voted against progressive legislation time after time in the Senate. If you go to the DLC website www.dlc.orgg) you will see all the usual suspects listed their, here's Hillary's page http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=1377).

I can't think of a better reason to have a ground swell that wipes away all the wealthy encumbants who have been on the public tit for far too long. Let's replace them with people like Nader who still remember what a true Democracy is all about !

[rmc53x]

Haveaheart & PigLipstick--
i'm with you two. it's clear that issues Nader brought up in 2000 have bubbled to the surface and are now mainstream. Nader's role as the thorn-in-the-side candidate has always been to raise issues that candidates in the forefront were afraid to confront, such as on Meet the Press last Sunday, Nader opined that the core issue in the 'war on terror' is the Palistine-Israeli conflict, which nobody wants to discuss.
It was the anti-populist 'third way' centrist dogma of the McAuliffe/­Carville/C­linton DLC machine that kept Al Gore from talking about the environment in the 2000 election, contributing to the tight race. and they hate Howard Dean.

[SolarPowerGuy]

This is the second of two posts. They may appear out of order.

Why did I, a die-hard progressive, a Green, decline to vote for Nader in 2004? Why will I do so again in 2008? Why, when both of the Democratic Presidential contenders continue to vote for Iraq War funding -- and said that they did NOT foresee having using troops out of Iraq before **2013** at the EARLIEST?

The answer is that I'm a democrat -- with a small D.

Nader speaks often about how the two major political parties are nearly the same. Well then, let's build another one! We progressives don't just need a President, we also need a political party which will compete for all of the OTHER offices that comprise our government.

The DLC will NOT allow you, the voters, to take back the Democratic Party. As one small example, witness how quickly that party bosses killed Stephen Colbert's South Carolina Presidential bid.

In 2000, Nader helped to build the Greens, the largest progressive alternative party in the United States. But in 2004, he actually tore us down by first declining to compete in our primary -- and then expecting our endorsement anyway, and finally, running as an independent when we would not endorse him.

Once again, in 2008, Nader seems to be making an end-run around the Green Party primary process. This sends a disturbingly anti-democratic message, and splits the loyalties of a political group that needs to grow.

Cynthia McKinney received my vote in the Green Party Presidential primary this year. She has expressed solidarity with us. She won't try to run without a group behind her -- but, sadly, Nader will.

[runswithscissors]

"Nader speaks often about how the two major political parties are nearly the same. Well then, let's build another one! We progressives don't just need a President, we also need a political party which will compete for all of the OTHER offices that comprise our government­."

This is what he's trying to do. If he can win 5% of the vote, the Green party will be eligible to receive serious public funding. It's not about winning the presidency (even he knows that he can't win), but laying the groundwork for the future. When it finally pays off, I can't wait to watch all the Nader-haters back-pedal.

[SolarPowerGuy]

Your rationale is eight years out of date. When Ralph Nader was nominated by the Green Party in 2000, he ran on OUR behalf. If he had won 5% of the popular vote that year, then the Greens would have qualified for Federal matching funds.

Ralph Nader wasn't the Green Party candidate in 2004. As I described in my earlier post, Nader first held the Greens at arm's length, then ran as an independent, which SPLIT the progressive vote. Most of the Greens stayed with David Cobb, the distinguished lawyer who won our primary.

Even if Nader had won 5% of the popular vote in 2004, the Federal matching funds would not have been given to the Greens. They would have been given to Nader's organization, whatever that might be.

Nader will run as an independent again this year, whether he receives the nod from the Green Party or not. That's a bad message to send when you are trying to promote true populist democracy.

I don't hate Nader, and I apologize to no one for my vote for him in 2000. But after that election cycle, it seems that Mr. Nader decided to "go it alone," and then expect us to follow. But Greens don't do top-down authoritarian leadership, we fight it.

All that Nader needs to do to regain my good graces is to acknowledge that he needs to put his name on the primary ballot by the filing deadline, like every other candidate, and then ASK for our votes -- not EXPECT them.

We get enough of that kind of B.S. from the Democrats and Republicans already.

[dannyS]

Nader has a history of fighting for change, not talking about it. The other candidates spend more time focusing on how they appear for the camera than what they will actually do if elected. Nader is the real deal and the democrats could learn a lot from him instead of trying to keep him quiet. If the democrats want those "change" votes they will have to earn them.

[SolarPowerGuy]

This is the first of two posts, and they may appear out of order.

I'm a long-time Green Party member, and former Nader supporter. He received my enthusiastic support in 2000 AND in 1996. No one seems to remember that he ran four years earlier as a write-in and earned nearly a million votes.

But I could not support Nader in 2004, and I won't this year.

Why? NOT because I believe that Democrats have improved, in fact they've gotten WORSE.

NOT because I believe that the stakes are higher, and so progressives must "compromise" to stop the Republicans.

Most importantly, for all you inexplicab­ly-toadyin­g Democrats, I did NOT abandon Nader because I believe in "the spoiler effect." AND neither does Al From, chairman of the DLC in 2000, who told you all to call off the dogs, right after the election.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041226192948/www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

You ignored Mr. From QUITE effectively -- so why, then, do you hang on every right-leaning word of other DLC leaders, such as Hillary Clinton?

Remember that, in 2000, eleven percent of YOU Democrats DEFECTED from Gore and voted for BUSH. Only four percent of Republicans betrayed THEIR party. And yet YOU have the audacity to SCOLD the 2.6% of the electorate who went for Nader. Get your own sorry troops in line.

So, why did I abandon Nader, then? Continued in my next post.

[762X39mm]

I love how this reactionary site has a lot of genuine leftists on it who must, it seems, battle (heroically) with the stupid, craven, ersatz-liberal horseshit of the Marty Kaplans of this world.

The Democrats are fascists and are implementing Bentham's Panopticon as assuredly as the Republicans.

I'll vote for NADER again this time and buy more ammo as usual.

Read:

Derrick Jensen's-- ENDGAME

Ward Churchill's-- Pacifism as Pathology

[Ironfox]

I don't for a moment believe Mr.Nader actually intends to run. If it becomes apparent that he poses a real threat to a Democratic victory the Party will be forced to adopt at least some of his priorities in their platform. It's how the game is played and I don't believe he has the hubris to repeat the last disaster. Give the man some credit,he's a player,not a fool.

[foolchild0]

This is completely unfair, not to mention undemocratic and un-American.

Mr. Nader has every right to run. This is America.

It's when Democrats start bellyaching like this that I get down on the party. This is so whiny, flaccid, and WEAK. Democrats need to face the fact that they are ignoring a large part of their constituency, and that they need to make this section of the electorate feel the Democrats represent them. If that was true, Nader wouldn't exist.

I was hoping the Democrats had grown up. Apparently not.

[tadpoles]

"But despite Nader's wishful thinking, we don't have a parliamentary system"

You hit it right there Marty and you are almost correct foolchild0. Unfortunately though it is very American. The American electoral system is a fuck up and unfortunately one of the better British policies jettisoned by the Founding Fathers was the Democratic Parliamentary System which allows much more diversity in ideas being heard.

With Parliament you don't elect a "President" - the head of the party with the most members in Government becomes the Prime Minister - and this allows those 3rd, 4th, 5th party members to be the thorn in the side of the majority and get those diverse ideas heard. Also think of the billions saved in not having this ridiculous primary/general election horse race for President.

It would truly take another Revolution to convert America to that system though, along with sensible ideas like metric measurements. Even good old Britannia bit the bullet on that decades ago realizing it just made more sense.

[foolchild0]

I guess I was referring more to the spirit of what America is supposed to stand for. But I agree- the parliamentary system makes a lot more sense, and yes, our electoral system is an abomination. It's when I try to explain it to people from other countries that I realize how little sense it makes.

[AArtVark]

How can the DNC accept a 3rd party or independent run as legitimate when they eat their own? Gravel was marginalized as a nutter and so was Kucinich. As soon as Edwards seemed to get too populist (not to mention speaking out against the nuclear power industry directly in Nevada - which I thought was the kiss of death for him as soon as I heard him say it on NPR) he started getting less media time... So of course the DNC doesn't believe in just anybodies right to run.

If you can't play the billion dollar political game - and if you play it by extension you become beholden to the financiers - then you're not a real candidate and get no media time. No media time and no one really knows your positions. It's a self feeding echo chamber once the noise is made. It's one of the reasons why I will never register Democrat as long as the party is run so despicably - and probably not have reason to vote for a presidential candidate manufactured by the party.

[foolchild0]

I agree, I was all for Gravel, and saddened to see how he was treated.

[research]

Nader is a conservative.

Nader is financed by conservatives

Nader's campaign will help conservatives win the white house.

To all those sincere Dem out there: Neither candidate that the corporatist MSM allowed to debate is perfect. Both must seem reasonably corporatist, both must seem likely to continue the war, or the corporations won't let them play. Both must play politics. As every election I have ever experienced, we end up voting for the perceived lesser of two evils.

I will vote for HRC or Obama.

Will you? or are you really a rethug?

Beware the provocateurs, both covert rethug and deranged dem. You can tell, because they threaten to vote for Brain Dead McCain or Neverland Nader.

[benalbanach]

Heaven forbid that anyone should run on principle.
Such a rare commodity that it is scarcely recognised by the likes of Mr Kaplan....­and others.

[research]

my candidate, Kucinich, ran on principle. Where was Nader then?

Nader is running on EGO.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"Nader is a conservati­ve."

Your evidence, please?

"Nader is financed by conservatives"

Again?

"Nader's campaign will help conservatives win the white house."

A third time? The DLC's own guru, Al From, disagrees with you.

I have my own grievances with Ralph Nader, described in several posts below this one. I am NOT defending Nader by asking you these questions. I am asking you to provide factual support for your outlandish assertions.

"I will vote for HRC or Obama."

Then you are voting for a continuation of the Iraq War through 2013 at least -- just as you voted for taking impeachment "off the table" in 2006.

Sleep tight, pumpkin.

[research]

DLC.ORG is the conservative wing of the dems. You know that, don't you?

"Nader's "illegal" GOP backers

Right-wing groups -- and Bush-Cheney '04 -- may have violated federal campaign law to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon.

Jun 29, 2004 | A Washington watchdog group is charging that Ralph Nader's presidential campaign benefited from "illegal" assistance provided by right-wing organizations -- at the behest of his supposed opponents in the Bush-Cheney campaign."

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/06/29/nader/

Oh, you say, but not this time!

I understand that as a Green party fan, it's your job to dis the two majority parties.

Hey, run Nader as a green, by all means, but if you have any integrity at all, close out your campaign before the election and tell your supporters to vote for the dem.

But Nader didn't do that last time did he?

So, whatever Nader says, his action helps the rethugs. Thus no matter what you think, Nader is a rethug.

[brooklyncitizen]

Many people will agree with you and I can see that it is a good argument but it skews the reality of what happenned in 2000 and what can potentially happen in 2008.

In 2000 the election was stolen and Bush was foisted on us by the SC; Gore didn't put up enough of a legal fight and caved. He didn't realize the fight was about more than just his Presidency; it was about the entire nation's welfare as well as the world's welfare.I don't entirely blame Nader since the election was corrupt to begin with..

I agree that his candidacy now does not re-frame issues or highlight flaws in policy.Kuc­inich is by far a more appealing, insightful, younger and committed candidate to fulfill this role.

"In the internet age, almost any idea can find an audience somewhere, but to win MSM airplay and a seat at the table..."

THe internet is king and the MSM is not.What seat? what table?The commercial media is a circus and the use of the internet has clearly played a role in this campaign whether it's by disseminating information, propaganda or fundraising for the candidates­.Do not underestimate the power of this medium.

Democracy Now is an excellent independent media outlet and has proven time and again that there is power in good reporting and relevant information.

Lstly Nader has been marginalized. I cannot imagine who would actually support him but certainly not anyone with any critical abilities. It is not 2000.It is 2008; eight years after the most disastrous Presidency in our history and we have ALL felt it. THe stakes are high and people know that; there is an urgency and angst and general fed-uppedness with Govt, all branches and both parties.

We are not risking living through 4 more years of catastrophic policy just to make a point.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Maybe we want Nader to be president more than we want Clinton or Obama or McCain to be president. My critical abilities tell me to vote for the candidate I most agree with.

[brooklyncitizen]

It is your choice but in this instance the candidate you most agree with will not win.

Personally Kucinich is the candidate I most agree with; especially because he has instroduced legislation for impeachment of Cheney and Bush.

Nader is acting on a narcissistic whim...whe­re has he been these last 4 years? has he been lobbying for impeachment or health care? has he been doing anything but sitting on the sidelines until this moment in time?

Kucinich is a Senator actively trying to push legislation through a very ineffective Congress.A Sisyphus if you will.

I dislike the Dem Party as much as the Republican Party, but real change is not about last minute grandstand­ing.It is about a process and concrete action....­we deserve better than these two parties but I don't see Nader clamoring/acting to change that.

Ultimately this is about him and not about the country at large...my personal conclusion is to risk with Obama rather than the known CLinton faction and the very known and wacko McCaine status quo.

[anelder]

Absolutely, even if he hasn't a change is hades to win. We can then lose with dignity? You act is this were a game and it didn't matter who won it was just a matter of how we played. Okay, good for our character and the way we live, but tell me what has that got to do with electing someone to change our direction. May disagree with him/her some, but never as much as with the characters that are in charge now.