Nader Hopes Third Presidential Run Is the Charm

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Consumer activist Ralph Nader today launched his third bid for the presidency, saying he is not concerned that his candidacy could deny the Democrats the White House in November.

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said. "You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication he's the candidate for perpetual war?"

Many Democrats still blame Nader for costing Vice President Al Gore the presidency in 2000, when the race was decided by a razor-thin margin in Florida. Nader ran again in 2004 but had little impact on the race.

Nader announced his candidacy in the same way as he did four years ago, on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said that he was running to draw attention to issues ignored by the major candidates in both parties: corporate crime, worker rights, military spending and foreign policy.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

Nader credited Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who leads the Democratic nomination race, with being "the first liberal evangelist in a long time." But Nader said Obama's "better instincts and knowledge have been censored" by the demands of the campaign.

"He's leaned, if anything, toward the pro-corporate side of policy-making," Nader said. The question is, he added, "Do you have the fortitude to stand up against the corporate powers ... and get things done for the American people?" Obama, he said, has also erred on foreign policy. "He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois," Nader said. "Now he's supporting" the Israeli government's policies, he added.

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, said he thought Nader's run would help his party.

"I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans," Huckabee said on CNN's "Late Edition." "So naturally Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in."

But Obama said Saturday that he was not concerned about a Nader bid.

"I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference," the Illinois senator said.

Surrogates for Obama and Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y) said today that Nader was unlikely to make a difference in the general election.

"I think it's a non-event," said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a supporter of Obama, on CBS's "Face the Nation." "These are primaries and caucuses that have excited the national interest, brought thousands and thousands of new voters in. ... They're not looking for a third party candidate."

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a Clinton supporter, agreed with that sentiment. He added that the real variable is whether New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will get into the race.

"I think that would have a major impact on the outcome of the race, and I think it's unpredictable which side would hurt the most on that," Corzine said on "Fox News Sunday."

The Democratic surrogates also agreed that Clinton had to win March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas to stay competitive in the race. They differed, however, on whether momentum was turning in her favor or whether it was continuing to drive Obama, who has won 11 consecutive primaries and caucuses.

"I think it's very challenging for her if she does not win both states," Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, an Obama supporter, said on Fox. "She's the leader in both states in the polling now, but what we see in the Obama campaign is really strong momentum in both Ohio and Texas."

"Those of us who are supporters of Senator Clinton believe and feel pretty positive about what's going to happen in Ohio and Texas. Our read is that she's doing well. She turns that momentum around if she does well there," Corzine said. "If she doesn't, I think she'll have to review where she stands, and that's what the former president talked about this week."

Former president Bill Clinton told a crowd in Texas last week, "If you don't deliver for her, then I don't think she can be" the nominee.

The campaign surrogates also sparred over a series of Obama fliers sent to voters in Ohio. Clinton charged Saturday that the two mailings -- criticizing her views on health care and trade -- "are straight out of Karl Rove's playbook."

"Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public," Clinton said.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, said on CBS that "when flyers come out that misrepresent her position on these two fundamental issues, I'm sure she is going to be very passionate about it. And, I think, rightly so."

Napolitano disagreed. "The flyers use her own words. But more than that, it was a sound of frustration to me. These are flyers that are several weeks old," she said. "Why the timing was yesterday is peculiar and perhaps tactical."

A number of the governors who appeared on the Sunday shows are high on pundits' lists of potential vice presidential candidates. None was quick to knock down the idea of being No. 2.

"I have a day job, and I support [Sen. John McCain] because I think he'd be a great president, not because I want to be vice president," Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said on Fox.

"I mean, any of us have awfully busy day jobs, and add to that we've got four young boys back at the house. So you know, you worry about these kinds of lightning strikes if they come your way, but you don't worry about them until then. I mean, you focus on the job at hand," said South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, another McCain supporter.

Kaine said of Obama tapping him, "[I]t's nice to be on a list. My mom likes it if I'm on a list. But I do have a very important job at hand, which is governing Virginia, and I want to do everything I can to help Barack win Virginia, and I think I can do that as governor."

It took a senator to knock down the idea completely. When asked if she were interested, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) flatly said, "No."

On ABC's "This Week," she added, "I would just remind you that there were a lot of short lists in 2000, during the election, and the person who got the vice presidency was not on any list."

Another Republican senator, Chuck Hagel (Neb.), would not commit to supporting his party's nominee, likely to be McCain.

"[A]t the appropriate time, I'll have something to say about it," he said on CNN.

Hagel once considered running for the presidency himself.

By Post Editor |  February 24, 2008; 1:11 PM ET
Previous: McCain Vows to Hold Line on Taxes | Next: Clinton, Obama Aides Tangle Over '3 A.M.' Ad


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Obviously on one cares what this egomanical goof has to say!

Posted by: tanaS | February 24, 2008 1:23 PM

A Republican plant couldn't serve the GOP better than Nader with yet another presidential candidacy that tells us more about his ego than his political judgment.
He obviously didn't learn his lesson from his role in 2000, when he was instrumental in getting George W. into the White House.
For more on this:

Posted by: BrigN. | February 24, 2008 1:37 PM

This is great. I've been sitting here all campaign wondering who I could vote for in place of the late Harold Stassen, the ultimate perennial candidate. Thanks, Ralph. Maybe by your sixth or seventh candidacy you'll conclude that the voters really are finding a niche in the existing parties.

Posted by: Karl Shipps | February 24, 2008 1:39 PM

This guy is slow out of the gate this time around, but he is definitely unsafe at any speed. Please somebody, make him stop.

Posted by: JMiller | February 24, 2008 1:46 PM

nader is a purely destructive and parasitical force in politics.he ruined the 2000 elections and threw the country into a crisis

Posted by: observer | February 24, 2008 1:47 PM

Ralph Nader, if he had any concern for others, should realize that he is greatly responsible for the last seven years' problems. Had his ego not prompted him to enter the 2000 race, Al Gore would have been in the White House instead of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and their cohorts.

Posted by: nevadaconnie | February 24, 2008 1:47 PM

Is Obama the American Mandela? Obama brings a message of hope and change to a country at the crossroads. It is choice between the past and the future. But is Obama the American Mandela who could inspire Americans to a better future at home? And a future where America takes it rightful place at the global table? Is he the one? The question of whether Obama is the American Mandela is discussed in my blog Angry African on the Loose at

Posted by: Angry African | February 24, 2008 1:48 PM

Why is this "news"? Nader did some good things but his incessant run for the Presidency is recognized by nearly everyone as a joke.

"Let's get over it and try to have a diverse, multiple votes, multiple choice ballot like they do in Europe." - Nader on MTP. Well Ralph, if you understood the political climate in Europe you would know why they have mulitple choices for the highest offices in Europe. IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE MULTIPLE SERIOUS PARTIES IN THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODIES!!

Why should anyone with half a brain in their head vote for someone for President when he has no party members in the Congress? Just to feed your ego?

Thank you, but no thank you.

Ralph Nader... Unsafe at any age!

Posted by: Tom - SanJose | February 24, 2008 1:48 PM

Ralph, your time has passed. Give it up, its time for the next generation of change. Don't spoil it again for the Democrats.

Posted by: Tom | February 24, 2008 1:49 PM

Hopefully Nader will forget to fasten his seat belt and choke on a hot dog while lunging forward as his Pinto hits a toxic waste truck and explodes.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 24, 2008 1:50 PM

Maybe he can run with Britney Spear--

she'd surely attract the young set to Ralph's party.

Posted by: Klem | February 24, 2008 1:51 PM

Stupidity is incurable

Posted by: Rolf | February 24, 2008 1:51 PM

At least I have someone to vote "for". However, I strongly believe, and have since turning 18 in 1962, that we should have a "none of the candidates are acceptable to me" lever in the voting booth. I believe we would see many more citizens turning out to vote if they had this choice. People are very tired of voting the "lesser of two evils" way. I have only done that once in my voting life. I had to vote against that despicable little piece of lifeform in 2004. You know, the one that will go down as the very worst in presidential history. Unfortunately, the United States of Arrogance gave him another 4 years to screwup. Ken

Posted by: Ken | February 24, 2008 1:52 PM

After doing this repeatedly, one has to wonder whether Nader's real goal is nothing more than Republican presidents. This is both intentional and egomaniacal.

Posted by: lovinliberty | February 24, 2008 1:57 PM

Gov. Corzine is right. This is a complete "non-event." Nader won't get enough votes to make a difference anywhere. Must be a slow news day.

Posted by: lydgate | February 24, 2008 1:59 PM

Ralph Nader is smarter than any of the other candidates.

Posted by: Brains | February 24, 2008 2:02 PM

People will vote for Nader because the two-party system really sucks. The dems did not change anything about the despicably evil "w"/DICKY regime after winning in '06. The dems and repubs mouth off about their differences but they protect each other. These jerk politicians are in it mainly for the money. Any serious threats from a third party would not sit well with these crooks.

Posted by: Ken | February 24, 2008 2:02 PM

Great. Now we have two guys with messiah complexes in the race.

Posted by: daweeni | February 24, 2008 2:03 PM

Land of the free, home of the brave and all these craven little wimps have their panties in a bunch about a man with principles who wants to talk about some real issues. If any of these namby-pambies were paying attention, it's because these issues have been ignored that the country is so messed up.

Posted by: Awaken | February 24, 2008 2:03 PM

it's sad to see Nader go from an icon for consumers to a spoiler for the nation....he's ruining it again. Is he being paid by the republicans to run?

Posted by: mike | February 24, 2008 2:05 PM

Mr. Nader, I am truly disappointed that you are planning to run for the Presidency again. I think we all acknowledge your right to pursue that office and your dream, but the question here is, are you really bringing anything new and different to the process or to the American people? It seems to me that you and Mr. Alan Keyes are trying to outdo one another.

Posted by: Jett2054 | February 24, 2008 2:06 PM

Nader has no shame. After helping Bush in 2000 he should recognize the basic facts about the American system: he is a spoiler and not a viable third-party force the way he could be in a parliamentary system. Not only does he have a huge ego, he is a political idiot, and those who follow him are bigger idiots. Nader appears really to hate America.

Posted by: scientist1 | February 24, 2008 2:07 PM

Spoil Me? Hell, yes! He gets my vote AGAIN.

Posted by: Robert J. Dickerson | February 24, 2008 2:08 PM

Is this the miracle the GOP has been wishing for?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 2:10 PM

Apparently old Ralph is so enamored of himself that he can't see how foolish he has become. What a shame. Let's hope any potential donors will realize his run this time is just another ego trip and keep their money in the bank.

Posted by: Mike | February 24, 2008 2:10 PM

I guess the speaking fee money was slowing down some. Nader has become a clown who cares less about the American people and more about his own personal fortune and ego. If he really wanted to do something constructive and effective where his opinion would actually matter, why not run for a seat in the House or the Senate?

Posted by: Jimmy Sweet | February 24, 2008 2:13 PM

I am convinced that Ralph Nader is a "secret weapon" used in the election process. After seeing what happened to the Democratic results in the past, the "secret weapon" is the only explanation why an individual like Ralph Nader would become a presidential candidate.

Posted by: Maru Angarita | February 24, 2008 2:14 PM

Actually Nader did not cost Gore the election - Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris did with Florida fiasco by keeping thousands of voters from being able to go to the polls and the Supreme court cost Gore the election by selecting George W. Bush. Gore cost himself the election by conceding in the end. Nader did not spoil the election. The voters and politicians who had control spoiled it. It's a fact that people should research instead of continuing to believe in and spread this myth. It's just not true.

Posted by: Papawhale | February 24, 2008 2:14 PM

If Nader is SOOOOO concerned "corporate crime, worker rights, military spending and foreign policy" then why are you running if only to stroke your run-amok ego. Thanks to Nader we had 8 years of a President who nutures corporate crime, does everything he can to suppress worker's rights, has enlarge military spending to obscene amounts all in the pusuit of his Private Little War. SOOOOO what does Nader want to do - to try to give McCain the edge and ensure these disaterous policies continue for 4 to 8 more years. That's real brillant, Ralphie, real brillant. Just admit it, you're only in for your ego. I used to respect Nader in the 70s but now I wouldn't even vote for him to work in the sewer. Anyone who votes for this complete loser and moron is really voting for 4 more years of Bush!

Posted by: dre7861 | February 24, 2008 2:15 PM

I think his campaign slogan should be
Running with Scissors

Posted by: GeneWells | February 24, 2008 2:18 PM

Fit for President? He can't even spell Barack's name correctly. (check his website)

Posted by: M Hollar | February 24, 2008 2:20 PM

Hey Papawhales,

I know you probably fele guilty for voting for Nader in 2000, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the 90,000 chuckleheads who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 could have voted for Gore and gotten a lot closer to their wacky dreams of taking away power from coorporations. No amount of dsicussion from you and fellow Naderites will ever change the subject.

Posted by: GeneWells | February 24, 2008 2:21 PM

It seems that Mr. Nader needs better friends and advisors to help him deal with what appears to be a delusional obsession. It's unfortunate that he has not been able to find a more constructive way to challenge corporate power. One cannot advance a cause or reform party politics simply by running for president.

Posted by: keith_in_seattle | February 24, 2008 2:21 PM

He has my vote, the party system sucks, either you can vote for coke or pepsi, and get the same result: more big government and corruptions. Bring the troops home NOW!

Posted by: steve | February 24, 2008 2:22 PM

The only Democrat that Nader "could" harm as a third candidate this November would be---??? Clinton of course. However, we're reserved that she will NOT be the nominee. Therefore, let him have his final hoorah.

Posted by: LAGC, II | February 24, 2008 2:22 PM

Sorry Mr. Nader, I once was supportive of you, but not any longer. You had a good, relevant rap for decades, one in which I once believed...but in 2008 a vote for you would just be sending a message.

I will vote for Senator Obama because I want to do more than send a message, I want to send Obama to Whitehouse.

Mr. Nader, please reconsider your decision to seek the presidency. By all means stay involved and speak to your and my issues, the environment and the korporatization of Amerika... but find a different forum - drop your candidacy.

At its best your desire to seek the presidency at this time is just a bad idea; and at it's are coming off as a somewhat bitter old man (like me) who never accomplished that which you thought possible.

It's hard to watch a worthy old solider try to march again. Sort like watching an old ballplayer whose time has passed.

Drop it...

Posted by: Vunderlutz | February 24, 2008 2:23 PM

Can we not get Buffy the Vampire Slayer to pound a wooden stake into this egotistical political vampire?

Posted by: EBM | February 24, 2008 2:24 PM

Poor Ralph. His ego is out of control again. Let us never forget that if he had not run in 2000 GWBush and his gang of criminals would never have gotten into office. Nader did more harm to America by his candidacy then than any candidate in history. He tried again in 2004 and did far less well. You would think he would have learned by now, but some people never do. Americans of all stripes and political points of view need to utterly repudiate Nader and his campaign this time.

Posted by: dsrobins | February 24, 2008 2:24 PM

A lot of people say they respect Nader for what he did in the 1970s without ever getting into the details. I think his Unsafe at any Speed was one, but not the only, impetus toward building bigger, less energy efficient cars.

Posted by: GeneWells | February 24, 2008 2:24 PM

Hey Nader:
You, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are the only people who think they can run for President without having even run or won an election for even dog catcher. Go back to your dreamworld.

Posted by: GeneWells | February 24, 2008 2:26 PM

So many slaves to the two-party system here.

There's little real difference between Democrats and Republicans because both move toward the center to get things done.

It's a shame we don't have a viable third (or fourth) party to really shake things up.

Posted by: Danaidh | February 24, 2008 2:26 PM

And another thing :

Ken said: "The dems did not change anything about the despicably evil "w"/DICKY regime after winning in '06."

Uh, the Dems merely took "control" of congress, however this didn't give them the votes to over-ride Republican filibusters in the Senate or a Presidential veto. Just in case you want to pay attention to something more than the usual Republican talking points. Rs love to point at the "do-nothing" Congress which they have effectively tied in knots. Sometimes a standstill represents progress (slight, I will admit, but better than getting rolled every time by the admin.)

There seems to be a real epidemic on the net of people posing as Dems who parrot republican talking points. This shows up in the vitriolic posts from supposed (or maybe real) Obamamaniacs, who by the way are going to hear every charge made by Clinton amplified by a million during the general election.

Posted by: scientist1 | February 24, 2008 2:27 PM

It is most interesting that while Nader feels the Democrats should win in a landslide this time around, or get out of politics, he seems to aknowledge that he can only act as spoiler. He denies this but the reality is evident by his defacto admission he cannot win! I do think that Obama could be more forcefull in expanding on his platform to closer match some of the Nader ideas. That could blunt the impact of the Nader candidacy.

Posted by: Billy Nobels | February 24, 2008 2:31 PM

Follow the money behind the Nader campaign and I'll be it leads to the GOP. Now that it's looking remote for Hillary to win the Dem nomination - and provide an easy target for McCain - the Republicans need to pull votes away from Obama in the general election. But Nader is such "old news" that it's a pretty safe bet that today's announcement will be the most coverage he'll get.

Posted by: Barbara | February 24, 2008 2:31 PM

Gore would have won in 2000 had he carried his home state. He was a poor candidate. Sure, Nader siphoned votes from Gore, but so did a confusing ballot and an army of lawyers secured by Jeb Bush on behalf of his brother's campaign. They were better organized for the events that followed in the evening after the election. Again, Gore was a poor candidate and, in the end, he ran a poor campaign.

Obama is a phenomenally well organized candidate who has run a near flawless campaign.

As the past two weeks have evidenced, the only things that can derail Obama at this point is a bored press with nothing to do (the Michelle Obama "incident"), Clinton once again playing the victim card (and in the process displaying all of the stereotypes of women in power), and the Republicans attempting to make something out of nothing (for example, Congressman Kingston's ludicrous implication on "Real Time with Bill Maher" that Obama is somehow "un-American" for not wearing an American flag lapel pin...when Kingston himself was not wearing one).

I am tired of Swift Boating, I am tired of character assassinations, I am tired of dirty politics. I sincerely hope that Senators Obama and McCain, two men who are worthy of praise and respect, run a clean campaign centered on the issues.

Posted by: P | February 24, 2008 2:31 PM

Nader clearly appeals to a certain albeit small sector of the electorate. As such, he has every right to run for president. No candidate "steals" votes from any other. If a candidate gets a vote, it's because he earned that voter's support while the others didn't. Nader didn't steal anything from Gore. Those voters were not going to vote for Gore because he didn't make a strong enough case for their support.

This race is the Democrats' to lose. If they lose, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Posted by: Schmedley | February 24, 2008 2:34 PM

I feel that this time around, Nader will have NO impact on who wins the presidency.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 2:35 PM

Here we go again!

This guy is real pain in the neck.

Every time there is a chance to get things moving in the right direction, there comes Mr 0.5%.

I wonder if the guy is not on a kind of mission: muddy the water when it is starting to get clear.


Posted by: Bekabo | February 24, 2008 2:38 PM

I have friends who voted for Nader the last two times around and they tell me they are not even listening to him or what he says at all this time, so while I hate seeing him even say he's running for the presidency, I don't get the feeling he will have much of an impact on the Democrats prospects of winning the White House.

Posted by: Lena_61 | February 24, 2008 2:39 PM

Why are the Democrats so afraid of Nader? If they were truly confident in their candidates, then Nader's campaign should be a non-issue to them.

P.S. I'm an independent voter and will likely be voting for Nader this fall. This country desperately needs a viable third party. Do I expect Nader to accomplish that in 2008? No, but we need to start somewhere.

Posted by: Tirade | February 24, 2008 2:40 PM

A Nader candidacy might not be such a joke if he'd spent the past three years politicking across America, trying to establish a constituency.

Or if he'd been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration.

Or if he'd at least tried his hand at a Senate or House race.

But he hasn't. I guess those things involve a high work/rewards ratio. Better just to pop in eight months before the general election, spew egotism from every pore, and make like he's some kind of savior, I guess.

Posted by: castanea | February 24, 2008 2:41 PM

that nader guy is a real hump. keep him away from mu boy barak or i'll bust his f'n kneecap

Posted by: TONY | February 24, 2008 2:42 PM

This is a democracy, people. If Americans screw it up again, they deserve what they get. The man has a right to run. You can't protect people from their own ignorance.

Posted by: Jeff | February 24, 2008 2:42 PM

Of course Ralph Nader won't win, but he might get 1-3% of the vote.

It could be 2000 all over again.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 2:45 PM

What a putz! Hasn't this guy done enough damage the last time? Voting for Nader in 2000 gave the country Bush on a silver platter. You may have agreed with some of Nader's policies and wanted to really really believe in your heart that voting for him might mean something but let's face it, the Nader supporters clinched the Bush presidency. Sorry but the Geens and enviromentalists indirectly contributed to the worse period of destruction to our planet in modern day memory.

If this guy really believed in helping third-party candidacies then he should have been working his butt off over the past 7 years trying to get "run-off" voting in use in many different states. That and only that has to be in place before there can ever be a third-party candidate that won't look like a complete putz and hand the election to the Republicans again.

But of course that isn't really his plan, he just misses the limelight.

What a putz.

Posted by: E Nelson | February 24, 2008 2:46 PM

Fantastic point Castanea. We don't hear a peep from Nader for years, then he just lays himself out there, as if he's SO GREAT we don't need any press from him. Obviously, this man's ego has gotten the better of him. He may in fact be a great consumer advocate.... but how great can he be if he's wasting time with elections?

Posted by: Yonah | February 24, 2008 2:47 PM



Posted by: RicRoe | February 24, 2008 2:48 PM

Ralph Nader is welcome to my vote, if only to encourage more like him to run. I'm amazed that he has the determination to continue.

Posted by: hj mcmaster | February 24, 2008 2:49 PM

Ralph Nader. President. Thats a laugh.

Posted by: Chabwera44 | February 24, 2008 2:49 PM

Nader provides this country a great service.

He will provide a different voice, and challenge to the three mainstream candidates.

Why are we in the middle of a troop surge? Why aren't we trying to balance the budget? etc.

While Nader may have cost the dems the election in 2000 (remember Gore couldn't carry his home state!), voters chose him over Bush and Gore, that is how American politics works.

Our system is caught in a vice between two parties. So while the more liberal side of the country learned its lesson in 2000 for 2004, and support for Nader plummeted, it doesn't change the fact that the real change candidate is Nader, and we're left picking the lesser of two evils, in terms of real change in Washington, the politics as usual type stuff.

So, my main point is, pay attention to what Nader is saying. He provides the necessary questioning so lacking in this race. Already, he is asking questions that I think have eluded 18 Democratic debates.

He can make Dem candidates stronger. They can refute him where he is wrong, and maybe acknowledge him where he is right, and change.

Posted by: comment | February 24, 2008 2:53 PM

Is this article a submission to "The Onion" ? When did Ralph Nader decide that he is anything other than his own, self-annointed/apponited saviour of the American government ? Hasn't this relic figured out that there really isn't a "mandate" for his anti-reality campaigns ? In fact, no one is interested in this self-agrandizing, narcissistic candidate, whose only win should be for a major reality check !

Posted by: Amazing | February 24, 2008 2:54 PM

Mr. Nader, you are a joke, nothing to do @ home and realize need more money from republican (through campaign money) then decided to run again as spoiler.....give it up and try to run as a small city mayor instead....

Posted by: theone | February 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Ralph Nader's incessant need to place himself in the spotlight has gone beyond the level of comical, it is now just pathetic. Yes, Nader was marginally relevant for a few years, but his ideas are so skewed to the left that he will never gain any real traction, and he will take votes away from democrats (Obama), which is the worst tragedy, as this is a movement that so mirrors his own, by a candidate that once worked for Nader.

Posted by: scott casazza | February 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Correction on Ralph "The Spoiler" Nader's political party affiliation:

Posted by: Kevin Schmidt, Ojai CA | February 24, 2008 2:55 PM

The fact that Hillary, Barrack, Napolitano(sp) think Nader's candidacy is a non-event shows how out of touch they are. This is America, people. Citizens can run for office outside the usual suspects. Let them. We need third and fourth parties. Don't count Ralph out. He is good for Democracy and will hold the other candidate's feet to the fire. He was not the spoiler in 2000. Bush was.

Posted by: Sharon | February 24, 2008 2:59 PM

Actually this will be at least the fourth time he will have run. Most people forgot he ran in 1996 as well.

Posted by: R. B. Clauson | February 24, 2008 2:59 PM

Ralph Nadar won't stop doing this until he is truly insignificant. Lets all make the silence deafening so we can finally put him out to pasture.

Posted by: Ken | February 24, 2008 2:59 PM

I can't believe Russert let the scumbag into the studio....has Faux News taken over all the media outlets???.....

Posted by: seakeys | February 24, 2008 3:01 PM

Nader will not be a factor in the race. He got 0.3% of the vote last time. He will be lucky to get that many this time. These votes will most likely be concentrated in states that the Democrat is sure to win.

Posted by: Andrew | February 24, 2008 3:02 PM

Ralph Nader is a closet republican. He just likes helping them out under the guise of liberalism. he is responsible for the bush era. What a loser. GO AWAY!!!

Posted by: Brandon | February 24, 2008 3:04 PM

All of you Ralph bashers have apparently never listened to the man. He does not expect to win, but simply get some dialog going on real issues. I voted for him twice, and would love to see him get in. If he is able to stir the pot a bit so that we can possibly see the true face of Hillary and Obama, more power to him.

Posted by: lee | February 24, 2008 3:05 PM

Ralph puts the ego in egomaniac...

Does he get paid directly by the GOP or is funneled to an offshore account?

Posted by: willandjansdad | February 24, 2008 3:07 PM

He has every right to run, Period.
Every vote he gets is a vote the democratic party lost due to decades of center-right corporate friendly policies.
With that being said, I am a big supporter of Obama. I hope and expect him to be the next President.

Posted by: Rich | February 24, 2008 3:07 PM

Could we add a qualification clause to state election laws that require candidates who get less then 1% of the vote in two consecutive general election to produce petitions with valid registered voter signatures totaling at least 5% of the previous general election voter totals? Pat Paulson as a joke once is one thing. Ballots with fifteen Presidential Candidates are ridiculous, and generate problem ballots like the butterfly ballot that helped do in Al Gore in Florida.

You get one shot at inflating your ego by running for President.

The requirement also ought to require that the candidate qualify in enough states to be able to win at least 271 electoral votes. Minority candidates in one or two states do nothing but generate problems for state elections boards in designing ballots.

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 3:08 PM

You want a third party? Great. You build it from the ground up. Get your people running for school board, register of deeds, town council... Prove your ideas work on a small scale, and that you're willing to take on the boring, unglamourous work of government. Then go small town mayors, state legislators, big city mayors, House members, Senators, governors... Show what your party can do at those levels, actually HELP some people instead of talking about how you WOULD help people if only they'd trust someone with strange ideas and no experience implementing them.

Wait, that would be hard. And it wouldn't result in much news coverage for the first 90% of it.

Oh well.

Posted by: the maple menace | February 24, 2008 3:10 PM

The GOP is not about landslides. Rovian strategy is to achieve a close contest and then peel off a winning sliver through nefarious means.

Thanks for helping that happen Ralph.

Cretinous scum.

Posted by: willandjansdad | February 24, 2008 3:12 PM

i think nader must stimulate his mind by inserting his head into a microwave oven.

Posted by: arthur a allen | February 24, 2008 3:12 PM

The only thing Ralph Nader will spoil is the media's laziness in asking the candidates hard questions. Shame on you who don't welcome a third party into the race. I'd vote for Nader. He's a good man with a noble cause who has spent his life shining a spotlight on corporate corruption. He has always been for "us." The Democrats lost the election, not because of Ralph, but because of THEMSELVES.

Posted by: mellowyellow | February 24, 2008 3:12 PM

The headline is erroneous. This is Nader's fourth run; he ran previously in 1996, 2000, and 2004.

Posted by: Mark Hertzog | February 24, 2008 3:12 PM

The guy truly enjoys making people frustrated and angry. Any people. That makes him feel important. He couldn't care less about who is president. He won't even spend any of his own money on himself to run. He thinks the world owes him. A liar and con in my book.

Posted by: bozo | February 24, 2008 3:14 PM

Has anybody ever checked Nader for Aspergers Syndrome? The symptoms are suggestive - "difficulties in social interaction and ... restricted, stereotyped interests and activities ... one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody and intonation...". He reminds me of those engineering types who are convinced no one else is sufficiently logical or clear - which leads to the formation of their own little self-focused 'personality cult'.

Posted by: Blowing in the Wind | February 24, 2008 3:16 PM

For all those who want to go to the polls and waste a vote for Nader in November, why don't you just stay home and masturbate to Discovery Channel. It will have the same impact on the elections and better yet, you'll leave a lower carbon footprint on the environment. I think he would like that alot- Ins't one of his platforms a greener America?

"Masturbate in '08"

"Go green with Nader the masturbator"

Posted by: Brandon | February 24, 2008 3:19 PM

Here comes the haters and the vitriol from whiny Dimocrats.
Are y'all scared 'cuz somebody like Nader is gonna expose Obama and Hillary for what they really are...Corporate supported and still workin' for the Pentagon! Good Luck hiding that crap now if Nader gets into any debates...but will they LET him debate? It'll be interesting to see how hard they fight that and what dirty tricks the DLC pull on a truth speaker like Ralph just like they did Kucinich!

Posted by: Papawhale | February 24, 2008 3:20 PM

Can't someone, like Ralph's sister Laura, explain to him that he is making a dnagerous fool out of himself?

Posted by: jake page | February 24, 2008 3:22 PM

There are plenty of consumer issues with China's imports that he could be doing something about. Instead the fossil just increases the chances for the GOP to retain the White House. Thanks alot for George W. Ralph.

Posted by: Bruce | February 24, 2008 3:22 PM

Hurray for Nader! I can hear the Dem vote diluting even as I type.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | February 24, 2008 3:24 PM

...enter the bottom feeders... I wonder if the Republicans are funding this run too...

Posted by: Don | February 24, 2008 3:24 PM

Yikes! With this candidacy, Mr. Nader has reached a low point! What exactly are the "points" Nader is trying to make? Obviously, running for President has not been an effective forum, but the unintended (?) consequence of electing George W. Bush and the turn that has given our history should be enough to make Nader pause. Apparently, it's not. And yes, Gore was a poor campaigner, but that does not change the fact that Nader cost him the election in Florida -- unless you subscribe to the questionable assertion that NONE of Nader's voters would have voted if he wasn't on the ballot. Ludicrous! If there's ANY chance that Nader's candidacy could throw the election to the Republicans again, he should not run. Therefore, he should not run! Drop the holier than thou, face the facts, and do something good for your country, Mr. Nader. Maybe you can earn a Nobel prize or something...

Posted by: Ford1998 | February 24, 2008 3:26 PM

I'm delighted to hear Ralph is running again! I, and all of us, will have somebody to vote FOR - who is for us. He has what it takes to undo the mess this country and the world is currently in, thanks to the destructive and limited two-party system.... THANK YOU, RALPH!!

Posted by: Randi | February 24, 2008 3:28 PM

From the VOA article:

"Well, I think it would always pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans," said Huckabee. "So actually, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that a few more will join in."

That about sums it up, folks. Of course Ralph Nader has the right to run a political statement campaign, but at what cost? His 3% in 2000 definitely kept Gore out of the White House, whether Gore lost Tennessee or not. Vote-trading was even suggested in 2004 (and threatened with legal action by the Republicans) to enable Nader's supporters to make their political statement without spoiling the election results.

Nader is a savvy citizen, with a lot to say about every issue--a man worthy of respect for his contributions to the American political process. His perennial assault on the Presidency is not one of them. Today's announcement is just sad.

Posted by: Larry | February 24, 2008 3:29 PM

What a jerkoff!

Posted by: Michael1945 | February 24, 2008 3:29 PM

I can vote for Ralph Nader. I can not vote for Obama, Clinton or McCain.

Posted by: althusius | February 24, 2008 3:29 PM

Why am I being shown only two comments? Ken

Posted by: Ken | February 24, 2008 3:29 PM

Ron Paul will even things out, if he decides to run after the Republican nomination process is over...

Ron Paul & Economics - Saving the Economy; Saving America:

Dr. Paul's impact would be major, similar to that of Ross Perot, thus negating any potentially negative impact Nader would maybe have on the Democrats- at least in theory.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 24, 2008 3:32 PM

Nader in 1992; Nader in 1996; Nader in 2000; Nader in 2004; and now Nader in 2008.
He certainly has a right to run. But who really cares?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 3:33 PM

Screw you, Ralph Nader. Screw you.

Posted by: Oh for Buddha's Sake | February 24, 2008 3:33 PM

Why is it that the only time America hears from Nader in the past 10 years is when he decides to run for President one more time? This man has done ZERO for us except to insure Republicans get in the White House each time. Hasn't he done enoug damage? Why is it he never runs for an local, state or even Congressional or Senate elections?

I certainly hope he's not eligible for public financing. What a waste of money.


Posted by: capone1 | February 24, 2008 3:34 PM

Is there ANYONE who didn't think this was going to happen? So who's next, Bloomberg...Lou Dobbs? The rules for candidates should be changed so these people can't wait until this close to the end then say "ooh, oh, I want to play...", but I really don't think it'll work this time Ralph.

Posted by: Coool Hand | February 24, 2008 3:34 PM

The whinign from the Democrats is hilarious.

It's certainly not the fault of the 50+ million Americans who voted for Bush TWICE.

It's most definitely not the fault of Gore for running a piss poor campaign in 2000.

And we certainly can't blame the Florida state government for using poorly designed ballots.

That's right, it's entirely Nader's fault that George W. Bush won in 2000 AND 2004.

Posted by: Tirade | February 24, 2008 3:35 PM

Imagine the insane scenario where Nader managed to win the presidential election-- how would he manage to get ANYTHING done without support of the Congress?

If he really meant business he'd organize a party with congressional candidates rather than launching this cult-of-personality presidential bid.

He's a self-absorbed, holier-than-thou fool.

And his website is censoring comments that are critical of his candidacy.

Posted by: Nader is a Fool | February 24, 2008 3:38 PM

Nader is an example of a brilliant man who cannot understand his role in the arena of politics - perhaps his early success using direct confrontation have distorted his judgment......

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | February 24, 2008 3:39 PM



Posted by: Give It Up, Loser | February 24, 2008 3:40 PM

It is amazing that people still give money to Ralph Nader for his insatiable desire to show off his witless ego, which is just about the only thing that is still growing in that aging bachelor's life. I suppose there are always a few left in the theatre after a standup comedy act went bust, like the cleanup crew.

Posted by: George P. | February 24, 2008 3:44 PM

Takes money from McCain's backers that they need badly and inoculates Obama on the Left. Of course, the media will pretend otherwise and not treat this as a Right Wing funded and promoted operation. All's fair.

Posted by: Jack | February 24, 2008 3:45 PM

Nader sucks... We had the same issue in France and thanks to these free thinking people we got "mini-Bush" Sarkozy elected. In the same way, one of the greatest victores from Nader is to have defeated Gore and made Bush elected in 2000. Poor stupid guy, except it he gets a lot of money from the GOP....

Posted by: SFJP | February 24, 2008 3:45 PM

Given the fact that he got something like 0.38 percent of the vote in 2004, I think America has listened to what Nader has to say, and rejected it. Everyone seems to understand that except for poor Ralph.

Posted by: castanea | February 24, 2008 3:46 PM

Although, he's refused to concede it, in 2000 Nader was the accidental catalyst of an electoral disaster. This country is still suffering from the consequences of his candidacy. But at least then, he had a new message to deliver.

Eight years later, we've all heard the message. It may have been forgivable to risk our democracy once, but narcissistic to do again when the dangers of his futile conduct are so apparent.


Posted by: mhitchons | February 24, 2008 3:48 PM

I'll support this guy. I hated him for 2000 but this year the way the Dems have treated Hillary after all she has done for the party......Well I'll vote for Nader just in hopes of beating out Obama. The only thing I was concerned about was the Supreme court appointees but screw it. The court is solidly right for the next 30 years anyway so I won't be around that long and besides If the Obamanables were so concerned about all of this stuff where were they in 2004. Why werent these people out pounding the pavement for John Kerrey the way they get it up for Lord Obamanable? WE could have saved thousands of soldiers lives if Kerrey had been elected. Wehre were all these democrats when it really matter?
Screw em I'll vote for Nader.

Posted by: Steve | February 24, 2008 3:48 PM

Is this news worthy? It is difficult to decide whether this guy loves the Repuplicans and Bush or hates the democrats more. He single handedly gave the world 8 years of Bush misrule and as such is as responsible for the consequences : thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. I wonder what he sees when this guy looks at the mirror. Looks like he wants another Repuplican president. I hope his followers if there are any left understands this.

Posted by: shrestbin | February 24, 2008 3:54 PM

Sometimes people would prefer everything to stay "just as it is". It is better for them to go through the motions and rubber stamp what others have decided for us. The question is if we don't address issues of global warming, peak oil, continued wars for resources, healthcare, public education then we aill accept the consequences of ill-advised policies and programs. So Democrats, "smile now, cry later". Republicans, what is it that has been done that makes the future better for your children?

Ralph, I may not vote for you again this time, but please, hang in there and let's make these folks answer the tough questions. Anybody get hit softball questions out of the park, but when is someone going to really do something substantive?

Posted by: Martin Zehr | February 24, 2008 3:57 PM

Democrats need to beat McCain by margins that will write an epitaph for the career of has-been Ralph Nader who is apparently addicted to the TV camera. Sad, he did some very good things for the US in the past, but is also responsible for tipping a crucial election to Bush, and bears some responsibility for the deaths that followed, along with the corporate rule that Bush engineered. How much better to have elected someone like Gore, not pure enough for Ralph, but so much better than war criminal Bush. Shame on you Ralph!

Posted by: denis arvay | February 24, 2008 4:00 PM

Third parties do not win presidential elections. (Protest all you want), you have thrown your vote away. Ask yourself some important questions: 1. How will he handle the war in Irag? 2. How will he handle foriegn policy? 3. How will he handle taxes? 4. How will he deal with the environment? 5. How about Health Care 6. And finally, how will he make changes in WASHINGTON with no support from either political party?

There will be no changes. And you now have helped John McCain...100 years in Irag; Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran (Do not forget that statement); continuted tax cuts for the rich and famous and big business; same foreign policy as we have now (No diplomacy). Let us not forget his statement that he hopes Castro dies soon. (Not very Presidential)...
Consider your vote carefully...our country is in need of positive change and change that can be accomplished...A vote for Nadar is a vote for the Republican Party, (Huckabee made that statement today, Sunday, Feb. 24th). Change will not occur with the same policies...

Posted by: nrb2 | February 24, 2008 4:00 PM

From today's "Head of State"

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder)

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder)

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever", or

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President"

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me"

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me"

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Head of State

Posted by: Robert Hewson | February 24, 2008 4:01 PM

This is what pinhead Obama said about Ralph Nader:

"My sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work. Now -- and by the way, I have to say that, historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways he is a heroic figure and I don't mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way."

I think that Obama is a fool not to embrace the agenda put forth by Ralph Nader who is many times the man and human being he is.

Ralph Nader has accomplished much for the American people.
He has positively impacted all of our lives.

Obama has done nothing for anybody.

What part of Nader's agenda does Obama not agree with?
Let him tell us.

And to folks who blame Nader for Gore's defeat - please think for a moment. Gore was coming out of the most popular presidency in modern times - named Lieberman as his running mate - distanced himself from Clinton - ran a bumbling campaign against an absolute non-entity former drunk and druggie. He lost because he couldn't even win Tennessee.

We are lucky to have Ralph Nader around to remind us of what our ideals are supposed to be. Freedom of expression. Freedom of dissent. Civil liberties. Health care for all guaranteed by the government. Government by and for the people - not the few wealthy corporations who control the democratic and republican parties and their candidates.

Obama is a chump for diminishing Nader.
Obama is a chump. Period.

Posted by: Alain James | February 24, 2008 4:03 PM

I have watched and waited for many years for a Nadar statement on racism and discrimination not only in the United States, but in the world. He sounds only a bit better than Lou Dobbs with his fight for the middle class. What about the discriminatory sentencing laws which have served as a genocidal policy against African Americans? When will the issue of police brutuality be discussed and addressed? Every single day in America an African American or some poor nonwhite is assaulted or murdered by police somewhere in this nation, their rights shamefully abused. We are living today in a police state - but no one has ever addressed these obvious criminal violations of human rights in this country. Democrats and Republicans point their fingers at other countries like Cuba or South America. Frankly, I don't care about a poor performing stock market or the outsourcing of American jobs when hundreds of thousands of African Americans are being wrongfully imprisoned and murdered by the racist arm of the justice department. Can it be that Ralph Nader's only concern is for green-house gases? military coruption? government waste?

I want to see real "concern" about the rapidly deteroriating human rights of millions of non-whites in American society. There can no longer be a separate America for middle-class whites and another America for all others. It is precisely this white arrogance that openly ignores the problem of racism that is at the bottom of this racist quagmire.

I can no longer pretend that I am concerned about the destruction of the Ozone or dramatic climate changes when I see my brothers and sisters are suffering the the over-crowded prisons and jails in this country. Or when healthy strong Black men can't find work because of racist discrimination.

I have voted for Ralph Nader every time he has run for president, but after examining his policies and positions, which are grand-sounding, I realize that he sounds exactly like Hilliary Clinton or Barrack Obama - empty promises that offer no real concrete solutions for the racism which plagues American society.

Obvious it will be a relief to see Bush leave office - and hopefully, this racist war in Iraq will diminish somewhat - but with that exception, I see nothing in the future - including a Ralph Nader run for the white house, that promises real social and economic reform that will end this constant, ever-present, oppressive white racism which has historically been a feature of the American anthem.

White racism is a disease which must be addressed FIRST in order to end the horrific suffering in the USA, African, Iraq and worldwide. Anything less is a joke!

Ralph Nader?!? Right!

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 4:03 PM

Once, a long while back, I had respect for Mr. Nader and what he did for consumers. This is pure ego, and I am guessing the closet support of RNC or their minions, in an attempt to possible dilute some of the uncommitted/independent vote.

I have to think he will be negligible.... about the same as the perpetual Lyndon Larouch.

Posted by: Rick | February 24, 2008 4:04 PM

The problem with BMO is that he inspires the far-left base of the party, but he is really out of touch with mainstream America. HRC tried to run a more mainstream campaign, which gave BHO his opportunity. Now the Democratic Party is in a bind:

Use the super delegates to nominate HRC, which will disenfranchise the far-left base.


Nominate BHO, and the center will go to John McCain.

It seems like the painful lessons learned by the Democrats with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972 have been lost. For the Democrats to be a competitive party, it really needs the people whose ideology matches Mr. Nader's ideology to leave the Democratic Party.

Posted by: William | February 24, 2008 4:05 PM

So glad that you thought it over and decided, that as the political equivalent of "Freddy" Krueger, you simply feel that you just have to spend somebody's money and have YOUR voice heard again. Some things (and people) in politics just never fade away gracefully; they just keep opening their scars to our imagination. Please promise us that if you don't make it this time Ralph, that you will back (like Freddy) with your same tired rant in 2016 when you're 80, or maybe wait until you're 96, Ralph. Believe in yourself there is still time...

Posted by: Ralph blah blah | February 24, 2008 4:05 PM

Posted by: gfwjq | February 24, 2008 4:08 PM

Will someone please get this clown a decent cross to hang on!

Posted by: Ervin Sowell | February 24, 2008 4:10 PM

I think about the millions of dollars being spent and yet more to be spent - nothing new is being said - it is boring. Does anyone other than me wonder why so few of the American people vote? Give me a good grass roots American that worked for a living - he/she can address the real problems: deminishing fresh water in our rivers, loss of forests by cutting/fires, garbage piles and raw material waste, our momey spent in our country, space station is a big waste and for what, do not rattle our war machine - someday some body will really challenge it hard, tell doctors to find another way to be wealthy than taking it from the sick people (where did medicine start to go in the wrong direction?), OH who cares?

Posted by: jim 2-24-08 | February 24, 2008 4:12 PM

I'm sick of people blaming the 2000 election fiasco on Nadar.

The Dems blamed everybody for loosing 2000 expect themselves.

And for those who want to say "well Al Gore never would have gone into Iraq" all I have to say is...

Where were the democrats when this war started. Fearful for their careers. They only began to oppose it when public popularity of the war weakened. They have NO backbone.

Obama and Clinton are straight line Democrats that will never bring this country the "change" they talk about. Clinton brings another Clinton presidency (what change!) and Obama is running on pure hype.

Washington needs Nadar!

Posted by: Bob | February 24, 2008 4:16 PM

In how many elections now has this selfish old egotistical fossil been a spoiler for the Democrats? I think he is a double agent for Karl Rove.

Posted by: coloradodog | February 24, 2008 4:21 PM

I hope Nader, the miserable little worm, is forced to read all the comments above. Thanks to him, America will have had 8 years of the worst president in history. Now we have to face the prospect of the beginning of 100 years of war because of his enormous, misguided ego? He should be in assisted living somewhere....

Posted by: MTNM1KE | February 24, 2008 4:22 PM

Great news. If only Ross Perot would get the itch to run again.

Posted by: Darden Cavalcade | February 24, 2008 4:23 PM

Republicans have ruined this country and the Democrats aren't too far behind and have emerged as a "do nothing party" that is no more than Republican lite. Nader at least offers the disinfranchised a reason to vote this year. I for one will vote for Ralph Nader and do not fear that my vote will be "for nothing".

Posted by: Richard | February 24, 2008 4:23 PM

A Thank You Note to Ralphie:

Dear Ralphie Boy,
Thank you for giving us the past 7 years. The siphoning of the Florida vote during the 2000 election is the principal and most significant, the pro-active cause of Al Gore's defeat. Good work Ralphie.

Now...also thanking you are the multiple of tens of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis. In addition the millions of displaced Iraqis are sure to owe you a debt of gratitude. They might live in the refugee camps of Jordan or perhaps in the sewers of Baghdad...but they thank you, Ralphie.

Who else might want to thank you? About a billion dollars a week being spent in Iraq will surely want to that you.

And, hmm, who else...I wonder...wants to thank you? hmm. The American GI should want to thank you too Ralphie. You can fill in those blanks you man without a conscience.

So thanks a lot Ralphie.

Pay him no mind.


Posted by: Jato | February 24, 2008 4:23 PM

I have watched and waited for many years for a Nadar statement on racism and discrimination not only in the United States, but in the world. He sounds only a bit better than Lou Dobbs with his fight for the middle class. What about the discriminatory sentencing laws which have served as a genocidal policy against African Americans? When will the issue of police brutuality be discussed and addressed? Every single day in American an African American or some poor, deprived nonwhite is assaulted or murdered by police somewhere in this nation, their human rights abused. We are living today in a police state - but no one has ever addressed these obvious criminal violations of human rights in this country. Frankly, I don't care about a poor performing stock market or failing economy or even the outsourcing of American jobs when hundreds of thousands of African Americans and other nonwhites are being wrongfully imprisoned and murdered by the racist arm of the justice department.

Can it be that Nader is only concern about dramatically changing climate? military coruption? government waste?
Not homelessness, poverty, police brutuality, rampant unemployment, health care?

I want to see real "concern" about the rapidly deteroriating human rights of non-whites in American society. There can no longer be an America for middle-class whites and an America for all others. It is precisely this racist arrogance of neglect that is at the bottom of this political quagmire. I can not pretend that I am concerned with green-house gases, when I see my brothers and sisters suffering from racist imposed prison sentences and languishing in over crowed jails where they are abused and mistreated.

I have voted for Ralph Nader every time he has run for president, but after examining his policies and positions, which are, at best, grandiose, I realize that he sounds exactly like Hilliary Clinton or Barrack Obama - empty promises that offer no real concrete solutions for the racism which plagues American society.

Obvously it will be a relief to see Bush leave office - and hopefully, this racist war in Iraq will diminish somewhat - but with that exception, I see nothing in the future - including a Ralph Nader run for the white house, that promises any real social and economic reform that will end this constant, ever-present, oppressive white racism which has historically been a feature of the American anthem.

White racism is a disease which must be addressed FIRST in order to end the horrific suffering in the USA, Africa, Iraq and worldwide. Anything less is a joke! Ralph Nader? Indeed!

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 4:24 PM

Nader's marginal impact did in fact effect the outcome of the election. Thus, while I agree with all your observations, if Nader hadn't run, things might be a good deal different now. Certainly his cmpaigns have no other lasting impact, and having seen what happened in 2000, he knows he could affect the outcome agian. To what end?

Posted by: Ford1998 | February 24, 2008 4:24 PM

One of the truly saddest happenings in my life has been to see a hero (which is the esteem at which I held Ralph Nader) become not only an embarrassment to most of us, but an agent, most likely unwittingly, of the most extreme elements of the political right. Did Nader cost Gore the win in Florida? Who knows to what extent the Bush/Harris team could have went to take the election without regard to the vote. But, it certainly made it easier for them to do so by keeping the actual vote fairly close.
We have paid very dearly for the opportunity for Mr. Nader to massage his ego over the past 8 years. It angers me that he would not think more of the country than to take any chance at letting this happen again.
That being said, his history over the past 8 years is now well enough understood by an astute voter, that I cannot actually imagine him being a factor in the 08 race. Let's hope not.

Posted by: Waynep | February 24, 2008 4:25 PM

"He lost because he couldn't even win Tennessee."

He lost because Ralphie siphoned off 75,000+ Florida votes.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 4:27 PM

Bush/Cheney is Ralph Nader's gift to America. The blood spilled in iraq is on his hands too!

Posted by: Ervin Sowell | February 24, 2008 4:27 PM

nader's criticisms have always been specific and accurate, and that's gone unnoticed in 8 years of criticizing him. he should make his case, and offer the green votes to the dems in exchange for a senate seat or two; the green party has comprised 5% of the population, with 0% representation in the federal government, for too long.

Posted by: e9999999 | February 24, 2008 4:28 PM

What is one to do when neither party accurately represents her/his views? I will vote for Nader because he actually has a plan to attack corporate power and bring grassroots organizing to the forefront - just where it should be. He may not be able to win the presidency, but it is time we gave some consideration to a party that could represent otherwise politically oppressed people.
For those who are worried about pulling votes away from the democrats, well you should be! Nader does challenge the status quo "progressives" who would just as soon leave people in poverty and maintain the racist and sexist workings of capitalism. Part of a flourishing democracy is the participation of people with diverse views, so why must you insist upon maintaining a two-party system that does not fulfill this role?
Allow for a third party and allow for real CHANGE!

Posted by: revolucionaria | February 24, 2008 4:29 PM

I have watched and waited for many years for a Nadar statement on racism and discrimination not only in the United States, but in the world. You sound only a bit better than Lou Dobbs with his fight for the middle class. What about the discriminatory sentencing laws which have served as a genocidal policy against African Americans? When will the issue of police brutality be discussed and addressed? Every single day in this country an African American or some poor nonwhite is murdered or assaulted by police somewhere in this nation, their civil and human rights abused. You don't hear that on the 6 o'clock news!

We are living today in a police state - but no one has ever addressed these obvious criminal violations of human rights in this country. Frankly, I don't care about a poor, struggling economy or the outsourcing of American jobs when hundreds of thousands of African Americans and other nonwhites are being wrongfully imprisoned and murdered by the racist arm of the justice department. Can it be that Nader's only concern is for green-house gases? Military corruption? Government waste?

I want to see real "concern" about the rapidly deteriorating human rights of non-whites in American society. There can no longer be an America for middle-class whites and an America for all others. It is precisely this arrogance that is at the bottom of this racist political and social quagmire this country faces. I can not pretend that I am concerned with green-house gases, when my brothers and sisters are suffering the over-crowded prisons and jails in this country. I have voted for Ralph Nader every time he has run for president, but after examining his policies and positions, which are grand-sounding, I realize that he sounds exactly like Hilliary Clinton or Barrack Obama - empty promises that offer no real concrete solutions for the racism which plagues American society.

Obvious it will be a relief to see Bush leave office - and hopefully, this racist war in Iraq will end - but with that exception, I see nothing in the future - including a Ralph Nader run for the white house, that promises real social and economic reform that will end this constant, ever-present, oppressive white racism which has historically been a feature of the American anthem. White racism is a disease which must be addressed FIRST in order to end the horrific suffering in the USA, Africa, Iraq and worldwide. Anything less is a joke!

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 4:33 PM

Dear Ralph,
Thanks for taking care of that car that hasn't been produced since before I was born. Now please, step aside. You're doing far more harm than good.

Posted by: ugh | February 24, 2008 4:35 PM

When will this person come back to reality?

Posted by: sardony | February 24, 2008 4:36 PM

Both Nadir (spelling intentional) and Gore were responsible for Gore's loss in 2000. Nadir did indeed cost Gore thousands of votes, but Gore cost himself millions. After the Democratic convention he was 14 percentage points ahead of Bush in the polls. By election day that had narrowed to the low single digits. In between he had acted smug in the debates and told needless fibs, such as the story of an old woman who could afford medicine for her dog but not for herself (or some such, in any case it was fake and pointless). That, the rolled eyes and exaggerated sighing during the debates, the refusal to listen to subordinates who told him he was blowing it showed Americans three things.

1) Gore had poor impulse control - so let's give him the nuclear "football", right? Not.

2) He refused to admit or learn from his mistakes.

3) He was willing to squander precious political capital on trivialities.

None of these were desirable qualities in a national leader. A slim majority, including me, still believed Bush was worse, but enough were turned off to cost Gore the 12% Nadir didn't siphon off and the election.

Still doesn't change the fact that Nadir didn't help matters.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 24, 2008 4:38 PM

Again, but that trick never works!!

Posted by: therebel | February 24, 2008 4:43 PM

His name is mud with millions of Dems who won't forgive him for helping put Bush in office. And now he's back? This man's ego knows no bounds. Accepting donations for a campaign you know will all be for naught in the end (and he must know it's an impossibility or he's absolutely delusional) seems almost fraudulent to me.

Posted by: DogBitez | February 24, 2008 4:43 PM

Actually the spoiler argument, other than the fact that it is not valid, because Nader took Republican votes as well, is quite irrelevant. Who cares if the democrats are mad at Ralph Nader for what happened in 2000? They should primarily blame themselves for losing, had Gore shown a willingness to make necessarily changes he would have won by a landslide.

Nader may not have much of a chance (although one never knows what can happen), but it may influence the election in desirable ways. He is likely to weaken Hillary, therefore it could tilt the nomination in favour of Obama. That would be a result already.

And the idea that the playing field is becoming more diverse (Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, possibly Bloomberg) should be welcomed. The way the US is right now, there is no reason to expect it to become a functioning democracy overnight. It will probably take a long struggle, with many Ralph Naders, Ron Pauls, etc. But in the long run there is no other choice.

Posted by: Alphysicist | February 24, 2008 4:45 PM

oh Who care anyway if Nader runs or not? The media decided back in the summer of 07 who would be running and who wouldn't be - Nader is running for one reason only - he's an egomaniac - he's so lousy he makes GW Bush look good.

Posted by: Tess | February 24, 2008 4:46 PM

A 74-year-old man trying to throw the presidential election to a 71-year-old man is symbolic of a rapidly declining America. Wasn't Nader's infamy already assured when his previous candidacy assured us of the Worst president ever? Nader is a curious and ancient slab of damnation.

Posted by: Polonious | February 24, 2008 4:47 PM

vsessoms - Hate to break it to you, but the Iraqis (as all Arabs) are Caucasian. The skin hues go all the way from pasty white to Mediterranean brown. Change the wardrobe and you'd be hard pressed to distinguish them French, Sicilian, Greek or Spanish. The Iraq war is a lot of things, but if it's racist then Bush and Cheney are fighting themselves. Don't believe me - look it up for yourself.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 24, 2008 4:48 PM

Thank you all for your comments. I have been trying for years to explain to my friends why I refuse to waste my time and dignity participating in the two party charade called US politics. Thanks to you all, now I only have to cut and paste this thread to show that anyone who wants to bring anything new to the table will immediately be screamed down to perpetuate the monopoly of malevolent idiocy pitched by RepublicanDemocrats.

Posted by: rabidgandhi | February 24, 2008 4:50 PM

I'm glad to see Nader announce. He gives me someone to vote for if Hillary should actually win the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 4:51 PM

Again - Nader is a jackass who gave Bush the White House in 2000. I should say, it was a tag team of Clinton and Nader. If Clinton doesn't do what he did which led to only the second impeachment in history, or if Nader doesn't run, Gore wins easily. Gore wasn't a great candidate but the other two factors absolutely did not have to happen.
Again - Nader thinks the rules don't apply to him and he doesn't need to serve in some lower public office before becoming President. A destructive jackass.

Posted by: GeneWells | February 24, 2008 4:53 PM

OK.Who helped him escape? After the 2000 election I had him put in handcuffs and leg irons, transported to a salt mine 10 miles below the surface of the earth by a squad of Howard Hughes' Mormon security guards. They were told to feed him a High Salt Diet but to keep him gagged when he was not eating. I paid for this with the money that the republicans gave him for running in 2000. In 2004 when the rebublicans could not find him to run again they used a "double". That is why he did not get as many votes as he did in 2000. The double was dumber. The republicans still liked the results because he didn't cost as much. They could keep more of the money that they made and stole off the backs of the middle class.I can't believe that he escaped. He had the same sportcoat on too. I wonder what happened to the other guy that was with him. He said his name was L Ron Hubbard. I guess he'll show up too.
Quick, somebody build a time machine, go back 9 months before Nader was born and take his Mom & Dad out to a movie or a ballgame.

Posted by: oicic | February 24, 2008 4:53 PM

Nader is not a second class citizen as he has accused the Democratic party of treating him as such.

Nader is a kook, and desperate for attention.... this is how he gets his kicks as his legs dangle over the edge of his grave.

He has nothing better to do but seek some sort of limelight to liven up his last days.

This son of a B has done more harm to America and the world than anyone before him.

Stupid idiot.

Posted by: T Sha | February 24, 2008 4:53 PM

last time he ran, it didnt work out well for anyone. thanks alot for that, mr. nader.

Posted by: Mo | February 24, 2008 4:54 PM

Nader is a narcissist. He's running because he wants to see his name in the papers.

God, I'll bet he hates Obama more than Clinton does.

Posted by: catnapping | February 24, 2008 4:56 PM

I hold Nader partly responsible for the 4,000 American lives and the 700,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost in Iraq due to the foreign policy of George Bush, which would never have been realized without Nader's interference in 2000.
Ralph - you too are a murderer, there is blood on your hands.
End this madman's poison NOW!

JULY 19,2004:
(CBS) If politics is war, then a basic rule of battle is emerging around Ralph Nader's campaign: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

"It appears that the Republicans are supporting Ralph Nader because they know he will take votes away from John Kerry," says Larry Noble, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Republicans in Michigan circulated petitions to get Nader on the ballot there after it appeared he would have fallen short of signatures, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod. They are also working to get him on the ballot in battleground states like Wisconsin, Oregon, Florida and Arizona.

Posted by: Emmanuel Winner | February 24, 2008 4:57 PM

How sad that Ralph Nader has not the intuitive sense of most smart old troopers past their prime to know when it is time to pack it in. Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn did not get the message either and towards the end of their careers had metamorphosed into pathetic old caricatures of their Glory Day selves refusing to accept the inevitable. Spoiler Nader seems heading in the same direction--a victim of similar overweening narcissism. It is grotesque.

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 4:57 PM

can someone just shoot this man.

Posted by: Elliiot | February 24, 2008 4:57 PM

Raplh would be just as good as Barry Hussein Obama. How can any White person vote for a Black Muslim after 9-11. Ralph will take some liberal votes and that is good. I pray to God that Hillary wins the primary for the Dems and gets the gay Black man "Obama" off the stage. He is a snake oil salesman.

Posted by: Joe Jackson | February 24, 2008 4:58 PM

I wish all the candidates in this election, including Ralph Nader, would directly answer questions instead of:
A) answering them in vague terms or
B) dodging the questions and shifting blame back on political opponents or
C) dodging the questions and going on a long-winded response with pointless statistics.

It's sad none of the candidates will do this now or anytime soon.

Posted by: Bobo | February 24, 2008 4:59 PM

How sad that Ralph Nader has not the intuitive sense of most smart old troopers past their prime to know when it is time to pack it in. Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn did not get the message either and towards the end of their careers had metamorphosed into pathetic old caricatures of their Glory Day selves refusing to accept the inevitable. Spoiler Nader seems heading in the same direction--a victim of similar overweening narcissism. It is grotesque.

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 4:59 PM

Ralph Nader Needs Attenttion!!!
Ralph Nager Needs Attention!!!
Ralph Nader Needs Attention!!!

Ralph Nader is like a terribly spoiled child, willing to do ANYTHING - even destructive things - to get attention.

He has a personality disorder the size of a house, and his family really should intervene and get him serious help, because this is all being acted out on a very public stage.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 5:00 PM

Actually, it appears that the particular sample of the American people who are commenting here against Nader really deserve Bush or worse. I guess all nations get the leaders which they deserve in the end. (Personally, I am more worried about the victims of the Iraqi Holocaust, brought about by those leaders.)

Posted by: Alphysicist | February 24, 2008 5:00 PM

It appears that Nader is running to attract attention to various issues he cares about. Why call it a candidacy for President? Because he concludes that, during a presidential election, the media pay more attention to things that are being said by candidates. So, he runs, he speaks, he gets attention to his issues, and hardly anybody votes for him in November, even assuming he succeeds in getting onto the ballot. So who cares? Does anybody care except the chattering classes? I doubt it.

Posted by: Paul | February 24, 2008 5:03 PM

Nader is a damned liar who cares nothing about really helping anyone or doing what it takes to help anyone in the real world.

If there is anything wrong with our government it is because we chose it to be that way and if we want to change it, it is up to us to have the courage to do what it takes.

In the year 2,000, he could have chosen change. To do something. Instead he chose to pose. Before a mirror and patting himself on the back. Worse than any Democrat. He chose the darkest of evil, because the Democrats were not PURE enough and he is doing it again.

If he wants government to serve, than he has to serve. That is how it works. He is no different that any other ayatollah. Self appointed judge.

Posted by: isa fakir | February 24, 2008 5:03 PM

Yet again, we have a non-viable candidate running under a third party ticket, which does NOTHING to support the establishment of a three party system, and possibly, does more damage in its implementation. All we have had under these third party tickets are continuous rich attention seeking nuts that are not viable in an actual election. So, that is the perpetuated image of the third party ticket members (rich crack-pots that need to have an extra 15 minutes of fame as they haven't gotten any attention for a while). Thanks Nader for helping perpetuate the two party system... great job!

Posted by: tommy boy | February 24, 2008 5:04 PM

Just looking for a way to read all the comments. Posting one seems to be the only way. Sorry to take up space. Ken

Posted by: Ken | February 24, 2008 5:05 PM

Nader is a complete egomaniac from the word, "Go". He is not out to help anyone except himself, just as he did four years ago. It is such a pity that a man for whom I had the ultimate respect 20 years ago to have changed into such a small, needy, self-absorbed person!

Ralph Nader, I not only pity you, but now I actively dislike you. You have managed to ruin your reputation and your image in this attention-getting manuver. You remind me of a spoiled two-year-old who always has to have his own way. So very, very sad...

Posted by: Bev Cress | February 24, 2008 5:06 PM

Not very smart Mr. Nader. You say you want to draw attention to corporate crime, worker rights, military spending and foreign policy. You can't win the election and become president. The Democrats are more in tune with your concerns than the Republicans; though not probably as fine tuned as you would like. You can plant those concerns of yours firmly in the hands of the Republicans by diluting any strength against them. Not very smart Mr. Nader - not at all.

Posted by: Don Richardson | February 24, 2008 5:06 PM

Nader again? He's getting to be like a fly in the soup...

Posted by: revlrl | February 24, 2008 5:09 PM

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain! The world is holding its collective breath to see if the American public can show that it is bright enough to not be duped by divisive fear-mongering this time around. I feel that if the Democrats do not win this Presidency, that things will go very badly for the U.S. and perhaps the world - Our prospects aren't great in any case. But Mr. Nader's decision to run benefits no one except the Republican nominee.
Since Mr. Nader appears to live in his own little universe, let's leave him there and just ignore the little guy. Deny him any audience - please.

Posted by: Christopher Toughill | February 24, 2008 5:12 PM

Take a moment to remove the political amphetamine filled syringe from your left arm. Untie the belt making the veins bulge. Good. Now put this into a larger context - Nader can't win, but his run provides another lens into the candidates positions. It provides journalists reference material to embed the questions that they want, but due to the media/politician symbiotic organizational structure, they can't ask without being disinvited to the dinner table.

Posted by: NYC Skeptic | February 24, 2008 5:13 PM

Dear Ralph:
Please do us all a favor. Take your huge, demented ego and drop dead.

Posted by: We don't need you | February 24, 2008 5:16 PM

Do away with parties. Let the two or three that gets the most votes in the primary win. Then they get to choose the partner.
Then let AMERICA choose who they what.
Personally I think Mr. Nader, will do better than any do those DEMOASSES that are running this time.

Posted by: Roy | February 24, 2008 5:18 PM

Nader is incredibly egotistical and self-centered. All he wants is publicity and to be the center of attention. He is totally irrelevant and the media should treat him that way. His antics in 2000 led to Bush becoming president. Does he really want McCain to become president?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 5:19 PM

Pooh poohing Ralph aint cool. If it reduces to McClain and Clinton they're both as jingoistic as each other. Nader then becomes a natural alternative (and message sender). Granted with Obama Nader could be a lost vote. But Nader's message is more on point than the other three. Corporation hegemony and lobbying power is destroying our system. Ralph to his credit sees it more clearly and the corrosiveness it's causing.

Posted by: sock puppet | February 24, 2008 5:21 PM

The author forgets that Nader ran for President as a Green in 1996. This is his FOURTH bid in a row, not his third.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | February 24, 2008 5:24 PM

When I can get beyond my anger, I find Nader's announcement to be saddening. I mean, here is a man who once was a champion of causes that cried for attention. Our country and people owe Nader a real debt of gratitude for what he accomplished in terms of car safety, the environment, etc. To be in the forefront of important causes takes determination, skill, and yes a large ego. However, his narcisism, without which he could never have been effective, is out of control. He may say that "if the Democrats have true attraction " then his candidacy should not pose any threat, but if his memory of the recent past is that poor then that speaks more loudly than any of his rhetoric.

At the end of the day, no matter what happens, it would be a sign of his own humanity if he felt shame.

Posted by: Saddened | February 24, 2008 5:33 PM

Here is an example of pure egotism and blind self-interest. How dare he claim to fight for our interests, when he sacrificed them four years ago. He is like King Lear leaping off the cliff, but without the nobility. A doddering old fool.
I'm saddened to hear the media even reporting this, when they have made a point of ignoring Ron Paul, who actually has some important things to say.

Posted by: Steven Fierberg | February 24, 2008 5:36 PM

While it took several circumstances to get Georgie his White House in 2000, two factors stand out: Nader stayed in a race that he KNEW would be close and he would siphon of some votes from Gore, and SOMEBODY stole the American Reform Party (and $12 Million of the Peoples Money) and gave it to Buchannon, who promptly stopped all campaigning, since he didn't dare draw votes away from George. He did get 17,000+ votes in Florida, most of which he admits were intended for Gore.

I always suspected the RNC of staging Buchannon's candidacy, it hadn't occurred to me to wonder if it also bankrolled Nader.

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 5:37 PM

Dear Ralph,

When it comes down to having to vote for Obama, I'll forgive you for 2000. That said. Go Hillary!!!!

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 5:41 PM

revlrl: Nice dodge of the blasphemy meter. tird also works.

Posted by: | February 24, 2008 5:41 PM


Spoiler Boy ain't gonna cut it this time. What a puke. Or Ralph. You know what I mean.

Posted by: SteveCo | February 24, 2008 5:42 PM

"There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship toward 'a new birth of freedom.'" -- Ralph Nader
Sorry, I am one of those delusional optimists that have bought into Mr Obama's rhetoric and if he fails to get the nomination, Ralph Nader will be my default choice.
In order to retain her political viability Mrs Clinton has retreated at every chance she's had to truly make a difference for our country. I wouldn't expect anything different from her as President after all there is 2012.

Posted by: Dwight | February 24, 2008 5:43 PM

How dare someone other than a Republican or Democrat run for President in a DEMOCRACY!

Posted by: Tirade | February 24, 2008 5:46 PM

Not even Nadir's demented, elephantine ego can stem the Obama tide. We want something new. Nadir is the opposite of new. He's stale and fermented in the juices of his exaggerated and distorted self-esteem. Nadir's latest presidential charade is so infinitessimally destructive that it will register only on his delusions.

Posted by: JimS | February 24, 2008 5:47 PM

I'd rather have Gore or Hagel enter
the race. Even Kerry, but not Nader.
We need someone who can get results
and get jobs for people who want to work
and get universal health care established
on day 1 in the white house.

We need to get out of the middle east and
have 100% solar power and stop nuclear reactor useage and production and shut down the coal mines.

We need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants (from all countries) and expel those in America illegally.

We should be building hospitals and not shutting them down. We should be expelling prisioners from America and not building more prisons. We should triple teachers salaries. We should only allow cars that 40 miles per gallon on our roads. A rail system should be installed to replace 18 wheelers to increase the flow of traffic and stop bottlenecks of jack-knifing big rigs.

We need to build solar powered electric bullet trains all over the country.

Which candidate will get results and which candidate will just give us more rhetoric?

We need a military machine 10X larger then the current size. We need conscription for men and women.

Posted by: Blake Southwood | February 24, 2008 5:50 PM

Go Nader. There are still plenty of us that want an ideologically pure candidate who cares about the issues at hand and actually stands up for what he claims to believe in. Obama and Clinton are just more of the same and McCain is spineless.

Watching some Democrats lambast Nader is sad; do you or do you not believe in the democratic process? Some of us are tired of having to chose between dumb and dumber come election time.

Posted by: cd | February 24, 2008 5:50 PM

The ridicule and almost hysterical abuse of Ralph Nader by many posting here conceal a fear of his political presence.

That's why they actively or passively support the illegal and/or brutal methods by which his name has been prevented from appearing on many state ballots; and the illegal and brutal physical removal of him from entering a viewing room at a 2004 presidential debate.

Those who like to console themselves by blaming Nader for their party's loss to the Republicans in 2004 have always turned their faces away from the obvious: the millions of us who wanted him as a candidate to vote for.

We wanted him because he raises issues that other candidates shy away from; he has a firm grasp of foreign policy and domestic concerns: nuclear proliferation, the cause of Islamic hatred of the US, Israel's brutal policies in Palestine, corporate corrupt influence on government policies - and how these things can be dealt with.

Those who'd like to diminish recognition of his influence on all our lives by patting him on the head as a "consumer advocate" willfully overlook the effect he and the organizations he's responsible for have had on political, social, environmental AND consumer matters in the United States.

Those who sneer at Ralph Nader fall far short of his personal courtesy, his integrity, grasp of issues (especially issues avoided by most candidates)and courage.

Posted by: WS | February 24, 2008 5:51 PM

Don't worry people, Nader's 2000 run obliterated his chances in 2004, and Kerry wasn't even as good of a candidate as Obama. I highly doubt any Obama supporter is going to switch to Nader now that he's in the race. If anything he'll take votes from Ron Paul.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 5:53 PM

This is stupid -- and sad. Nader's ego has obviously outgrown his better judgment. He was once a great man, but now he is just pathetic. How 'bout we just ignore him this time around?

Posted by: Economy | February 24, 2008 5:57 PM

Posted by: WS | February 24, 2008 05:51 PM

Those who sneer at Ralph Nader fall far short of his personal courtesy, his integrity, grasp of issues (especially issues avoided by most candidates)and courage.


There's smart courage and stupid courage. There's integrity and there's stubborness.

If he really wanted to accomplish something he'd start a political party & work to build it.

This is just posturing and ego-stroking by a political holy man.

Posted by: I don't think so | February 24, 2008 6:01 PM

He is right about Americans being disillusioned, but what his monstrous ego has not yet grasped is that after his last embarrassing interference in what was otherwise a far-from-doomed attempt to get rid of that maniac in the White House, Americans are also disillusioned with HIM.

Go home you silly man, and interfere where you might make a difference. Why on earth would you want to make the Republicans happy AGAIN? What on earth is wrong with you?

Posted by: wardropper | February 24, 2008 6:02 PM

Thanks again Ralph! In 2000 you gave us four years of the worst President we have ever had in this nation. You liked those results so well you did a repeat of this big favor in 2004. And here we go again. I can't stand it!!!!!!
Ralph, you are the Big Fraud in this country. It's not Big Business. It's not the Democrats. It's YOU!

Posted by: CDS | February 24, 2008 6:02 PM

Nut for nader pulling in about 95000 votes, a dispropotionately large number of which would have gone to Gore, Bush wouldn't have been anointed as the winner in Florida, by the slimmest of margins, a few hundred votes. Right now would have been the last few months of a second Gore term, and the cast of characters in the current race would have been vastly different.

It would be a travesty if Nader's most significant achievements would be listed as his tarpedoing the chances of two democratic candidates.

Posted by: Krishna | February 24, 2008 6:04 PM

Is Obama the American Mandela? Obama brings a message of hope and change to a country at the crossroads. It is choice between the past and the future. But is Obama the American Mandela who could inspire Americans to a better future at home? And a future where America takes it rightful place at the global table? Is he the one? The question of whether Obama is the American Mandela is discussed in my blog Angry African on the Loose at

How can you compare Obama to Mandela? How you can compare the USA to South Africa during apartheid? The major difference is the Black population was (is) the majority of the population in South Africa being suppressed by the white rule representing the minority of the population.

Mandela spent years in Prison fighting for the rights of the majority.

But...if you want to compare Obama to Mandela, then maybe you should compare Michelle to Winnie.

Posted by: badger3 | February 24, 2008 6:06 PM

Ole Ralph can only tilt the election if the voters let him.

Everyone SHOULD know that Ralph will never win.

If emotion trumps your reason - and you vote for Ralph as some sort of protest - you forfeit that vote.

And you can only blame yourself.

Pretty basic stuff.

Posted by: chuckamok | February 24, 2008 6:19 PM

I wish this egomaniac would go away. He hurt the causes he's championed by his self absorbed presidential runs.

The environment would have gotten more attention, and we might not have 4000 dead and 50,000 wounded Americans if he'd have just STFU in 2000.

Go away NADER !!

Posted by: Danny | February 24, 2008 6:20 PM

I wonder if Hagel refuses to endorse McCain right now because of Bloomberg? Isn't it rumored that Hagel would be Bloomberg's running mate?
So if Bloomberg enters the race...Nader would pull from the far left of the party and Bloomberg will pull from the Moderate end of the party and probably moderates from McCain as well.
It would really make for an interesting election!

Posted by: badger3 | February 24, 2008 6:20 PM


Posted by: HK | February 24, 2008 6:22 PM

"How can you compare Obama to Mandela?"

How indeed.

Obama is no Mandela, and saying so is no disservice to him.

Few men have risked and achieved what Mandela has.

Posted by: chuckamok | February 24, 2008 6:22 PM

Thanks for entering again, Mr. Nader. Some of us are absolutely fed up with the candidates and our political parties. We're anti-corporation because it's hard to be for the people if you're for the corporations.

Ralph Nader is not an election spoiler. If Gore had been such a great choice, more people would have voted for him. Actually, the 200,000+ Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush may just have voted for Gore if he truly had been that good a candidate. To lay 100% of the outcome of the election on a man who received only 2.7% of the vote is ludicrous.

Posted by: Kevin | February 24, 2008 6:23 PM

I respectfully suggest (and hope) that Mr. Nader go out and test drive a few Corvairs before he proceeds with his campaign. He's been such a wonderful help to the GOP (Grand Old Pharts)!

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | February 24, 2008 6:24 PM

If Nader wants to address issues unaddressed by the current candidates, why doesn't he use his considerable resources to help us common citizens hold candidate's feet to the fire. I'm as angry as he is that candidates aren't speaking to most of the REAL issues of the day (government corruption, role of government in our lives, dysfunctional governmental functioning; overreaching executive power, paralyzed congress, a judicial branch used as an extension of the executive branch; spending & budget insanity.

If he wants to have a POSITIVE impact on the president...don't steal votes from candidates who's views may ally closely with the public force the candidates to respond to us.

Posted by: lasinva | February 24, 2008 6:29 PM

Nader is an egocentric joke. He once was an Icon but all he has done for America lately was give us George Bush. He has become the Gus Hall of his era.

Posted by: richard C | February 24, 2008 6:37 PM

Third time is a charm? For Who? Spoilers and malcontents? Record high voters, 18-29 years of age, don't even know who you and your monumental ego are and want something more than your short-sighted vision can promise them.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 6:40 PM

Exhale, everybody! Nader's affecting nothing this time around. The only people who will vote for him are the tin-foil-hatted a'ginners and malcontents who confuse negativity for sophistication.

America has outgrown this odd little gadly. The only impact he will have is on Motel 6's bottom line as he takes his "campaign" to the 0.1% of the electorate who would consider an election between Stalin and Gandhi "a choice between Coke and Pepsi."

I'm more concerned about how he rates air time on "MTP" I could get more votes than Nader on my "Free Beer for Everyone" ticket, guaranteed. When is my booking?

Posted by: davidg7376 | February 24, 2008 6:43 PM

So, I gather Ralph is out of money again and needs Presidential campaign funds to advertise? Hope never has to go out and get an actual job :-)

Posted by: carl | February 24, 2008 6:44 PM

Maybe Ralph needs some seed money for his next tome, "Unsafe At Any Age".

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 6:49 PM

"I hold Nader partly responsible for the 4,000 American lives and the 700,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost in Iraq due to the foreign policy of George Bush, which would never have been realized without Nader's interference in 2000.
Ralph - you too are a murderer, there is blood on your hands."

Are you nuts?
Blaming the Iraq war and its' consequences on Nader?

Haven't you got the guts and/or courage to confront Bush and the weak-kneed democrats who initiated and enabled this war?
Have you got the guts to confront Obummer for campaigning for Lieberman and voting continuously to fund the war?

Blaming Nader is a cowardly cop-out.

Posted by: Alain James | February 24, 2008 6:51 PM

A downside of an active democracy is that folks like Nader can undermine the process. He was great in his glory days of pointing out problems with products, but he has had his time in the sun. Why does Nader still feel the need to feed his ego at the expense of the rest of us?

Posted by: galen w | February 24, 2008 6:56 PM

Ralph Hasn't been hiding anywhere the last 8 years. He's been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and has written at least three books in the last 6 years. The better question is where has the Press been, where have the "Talking Heads" been. And the population is to busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the easy route and don't THINK DEEP, settling instead for for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what' s going on takes work, in a Corporate controlled State.
Thank you Ralph for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, has been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue DNC myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow Countrymen. More power to your ideas. And by the way, Happy Birthday! ��..All the rest of you, buckle-up

Posted by: Seb McGarigle | February 24, 2008 6:58 PM

If anyone votes for this self-righteous egotistical moron they should be shot at sunrise. Where is his commentary during the years between elections? If Cal Thomas can get a job as a columnist, as pathetic as he is, then surely Nader could as well... but evidently he just likes to crash parties to which no one invited him, and run his mouth well after the fact. I can only surmise he likes to see his name in the paper. He's made himself a perenial joke. How sad.

Posted by: michael4 | February 24, 2008 7:04 PM

Please God I hope no one is stupid enough to vote for him again.

Posted by: kalonscott | February 24, 2008 7:04 PM

Don't anyone think for a minute Nader can spoil another election.

There are at least two highly regarded Democrats in Washington Obama can choose for his VP running mate that could attract most of the "green" votes away from Nader.

Posted by: Kevin Schmidt, Ojai CA | February 24, 2008 7:06 PM

I'd planned to stay away from the polls next November.

Now, I'll vote for Ralph Nader if he continues to point to the urgent problems which face us as a nation today, and propose policy solutions for them.

It's entirely within the democratic traditions of our nation for any American to run for electoral office. That is what Mr. Nader is doing. Good for him, and shame on the Democrats for so anti-democratically attacking him once again for his presidential candidacy. If they were bold and responsible politicians, they would invite his participation and the lively debate it will provoke.

We are not an elected dictatorship. As a nation, over the long run, we need a drastic revision of our constitution which will put the executive under legislative control as it is in a parliamentary system. Democratic involvement will mean getting our legislators away from the monied vested interests which control them, and making them more directly responsible to their constituencies.

The parliamentary-style set up isn't perfect, and can be subverted as it apparently has been in Britain and in other countries. But it is still better than the polity we have always had, which tends in the direction of power elite rule - which almost always meant, with the exception of only two or three intervals in American history, business elite rule. It's hard to see how a single dissenting candidacy can make a difference in that respect.

And we have yet to come up with the kind of political vision which will energize us all to make the kind of changes we must in order to re-direct our country in the direction of a survivable, equitable future in which all Americans live abundant, happy, productive lives which will not destroy our cultural and natural environments, and the opportunity of our posterity to do the same.

But Ralph's presidential candidacy, narrow in its policy focus as it has seemed , is still a step in the right direction.

Posted by: cyboman1 | February 24, 2008 7:12 PM

Ralph Nader's candidacy is the best decision possible to contribute to real change in USA and the world.

His invaluable contributions are:

1) Nader's policies will make Obama's to look more moderate and hence give him a wider appeal and more electability.

2) By Obama being perceived as moving to the center, McCain will respond by moving to the right, under the premise of unifying the Republicans, and he will become even less electable in November.

3) He will put on the table extremely important issues that will deepen voters perceptions of the urgency for change.

So, very good news for all, really...

Posted by: much better now | February 24, 2008 7:16 PM

With Nader it is all or nothing. This is the same as the policy of the German Communists when faced with a choice between Hitler or the Social Democrats. They chose to attack the Social Democrats. We know the rest of the story.

Posted by: norman ravitch | February 24, 2008 7:17 PM

Ralph who? Oh, Nader..hmm...why is he important again? Oh right....and this will be relevant to the election how..? Uh it's just another slow news day? Right, I get it. Wake me up in time to see Obama get sworn in.

Posted by: Erik | February 24, 2008 7:24 PM


Posted by: GANY | February 24, 2008 7:28 PM

Al Gore has only himself to blame for losing the 2000 election. At first I too blamed Ralph Nader for being a spoil. But after examining the facts I came to the conclusion the Al Gore himself made many mistakes. He inherited the presidency from one of the most popular and economically successful presidents of our time and he shot himself in the foot by separating himself from his success, losing his own home state of Tennessee (maybe lieberman was a bad choice), losing Arkansas, etc. I lost respect for Gore because he made the wrong choice when he requested a small recount of votes in Florida as opposed to the entire state....he allowed himself to be defeated; most of all nader won 95,000 votes....Bucchanan got thousands of votes from democrats by mistake and the cuban miami mayor held back many from voting. Florida should not even have been in play...for the presidency. Ralph Nader has done more for us and our children than any candidate or public servant. Every time you get into your car, you have Ralph Nader to thank for the safety regulations to protect you and your children. He has been selfless in his lifetime campaign to make life better for all americans. He is raising important issues that every citizen who cares about their family needs to hear. The politicians will dismiss him but we as citizens of this country who want to make life better and safer for us should not only listen and take him seriously but should force the other candidates to take on his cause. The cause is not his but is ours....he may only be in this race to force the democratic candidates to take up policies that are in the best interest of people rather than corporations. For that reason alone he should be given a platform..I for one will go to Church to hear the banal elequence of of Obama but the liberal evangelist has no place in the Whitehouse. Let him first do his time. If you want to know what he has really accomplished go to Ralph Nader's webb site....there you will hear the truth because that is what Ralph Nader is all about!

Posted by: Gina | February 24, 2008 7:35 PM

Much ado about nothing.

Posted by: Diogenes | February 24, 2008 7:42 PM


Since 2000, when he claimed there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats, Ralph Nader has had blood on his hands.

By his own admission, on Sunday's Meet the Press, pollsters indicate that 39% of the votes he received in Florida in 2000 would have gone to Gore, with only 25% to Bush. He fails to follow the math to its conclusion, though -- a clear Gore win in Florida by 13,111 votes - if Nader had not run.

Nader didn't mind because he got what he wanted in 2000 -- party clashes.

In the August 2000 issue of Outside Magazine, it was reported that when Nader was asked if threatened with a gun to his head, who would he vote for - Gore or Bush - he immediately said, "Bush." Why? "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win."

Nader's agenda is no longer the well-being of Americans. His agenda is a complete disruption of majority rule. Nader wants a multiple choice, multiple party democracy - but this would often leave Americans with a leader that the majority of the people, split into two or more parties, voted against.

With almost 4000 American military dead, to say nothing of the multi-fold more disabled, poorly cared for, often with ruined marriages and families, together with estimates between 88,000 to almost a million Iraqi citizens, leaving a dangerously angry generation of uneducated orphans - all as a result of the Bush administration's determination, beyond reason, to oust Saddam Hussein and control the future of the oil-rich land - there is a lot of blood that has been shed. In a war that was a phony response to 9/11.

Al Gore would not done this to Iraq - or to Americans. Therein lies a huge difference.

When Nader ran again in 2004 - despite Bill Maher and Michael Moore publicly dropping to their knees before their former hero, on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher", and begging him not to run - he claimed it was because he alone was willing to end the war in Iraq - the war his ego facilitated.

Nader's 2004 run was largely unsupported and pathetic, especially when he knowingly accepted - and defended - donations from top Republicans aiming to split the democratic vote.

Now, in 2008, Nader claims he must run again, this time to take on corporate control of the government. Again he seeks to fix what he made worse. It was his interference in majority rule that put the U.S. government in the hands of the most corporate-friendly President in history - the man who filled Cabinet posts with the lobbyists who had fought federal agency oversight.

Al Gore would not have populated the entire executive branch with industry lobbyists aiming to censor scientific evidence. Another major difference.

Whatever Gore's flaws, these unarguable differences have had significant, deadly consequences.

If Ralph Nader were the man he once was - the crusader for American consumers - he would put his energy into the important voting issues that have been rampant since 2000 - the Help America Vote Act (written by the corrupt and jailed Congressman Bob Ney under the influence of Diebold money transferred by Jack Abramoff), the hackable voting machines, the illegitimate purging of voter registration lists, the uncounted ballots, the corporate intimidation of election officials. There was an important role for Nader to play.

Instead, Ralph Nader has forsaken us. And "We, the People" are worse off for his betrayal.

We owe it to our selves, our families, and to the world, to see this 2008 candidacy for what it must be: empty, without value, and over.

Posted by: Barbara Bellows-TerraNova | February 24, 2008 7:49 PM

Nader is right on policy; wrong on tactics. It would have made far more sense if he had run in the Democratic primaries, seeking first to take back the Democratic party from corporatists like the Clintons, before taking the government back from the corporate thieves who now dominate it.

Posted by: cann4ing | February 24, 2008 7:56 PM

The Freedom of Information Act
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Water Act
Public Citizen
Seat Belts

No elected (or selected) president can boast a record like that.
Run, Ralph, run!

Posted by: Jurgen Vsych | February 24, 2008 8:25 PM

The majority opinion of the posts here, have convinced me that the american voter is not only stupid but also very much unaware!
The democrat candidates talk the talk of political and social change, but they walk the walk of maintaining the excessive power of the Military Industrial Complex and the power of the 1% of the population that controls so much of our ecconomic and political lives!
Power in a democracy is supposed to be from the bottom up and if you think that the democrats are so much different than the republicans that believe that, "power should come from the top down!" you have not been paying close attention of what has been going on in the congress, and in america as a whole!
All of you BUSH haters that vote for the democrats because you believe that this bought off political party really represents change from the recent past are blind, deaf and dumb!
To be true to yourself and true to your values I urge you to vote not necessarily for a winner but for your convictions!
That is the only way that you can respect yourself and your country!

Posted by: Richard Walters | February 24, 2008 8:54 PM

I really believe that Nader gets paid off by the Republicans to "steal" as many votes from the Demos he can. He destroyed Al Gore becoming President in 2000 and I think he is a Republican "water boy" to take a close election and give it to the Republicans. This Nader should be investigated for corruption. I do hope the dumb people who have voted for him in the past will send him a message to get out of "politics" and stop being a hired gun for the Republicans. I do not know who is the most stupid----Nader or the fools that vote for him!

Posted by: David Wilson | February 24, 2008 8:55 PM

Obama in landslide...
Right DNC?

gravel kucinich paul nader
More whistle-blowers

Posted by: gravel kucinich paul nader | February 24, 2008 9:23 PM

Oh yea .. I forgot ... and I'm running too ... yea .. that's the ticket ..

Posted by: Art | February 24, 2008 9:55 PM

I'm so glad Nader is running, I can vote my conscience at last.

If you blame Nader for the 2000 loss to Bush, then YOU are the GOP agent, not Ralph. You are ignoring the butterfly ballots, the Republican candidate's brother being the governor of the state in contention, Katherine Harris manipulating the state court, and Rehnquist casting the deciding vote.

In essence, you are excusing all of the 50 + 1% tactics of Rove's hate machine that defy the purpose of democracy and ignoring all the essences of the popular vote being discounted. And yes, you are excusing Gore for not being himself and trying to run a "safe" centrist campaign, falling for the Rove strategy. Kerry made the same unappealing mistake of proposing himself as Republican "lite," Howard Dean would have easily been a more authentic and attractive candidate but the Democrats decided to play it safe and run the "war hero" who fell for swift boating. Rove lives on, I'm sure Obama the "Muslim black teenage cocaine user" will be a household phrase by the time the GOP smear machine is done with him, don't you so-called liberals get it yet?!

You can't run Nader for running anymore than Alan Keyes's multiple runs on the definition that compassionate conservatism is dead, and yet Keyes has never been blamed for upsetting primary results. Blame the Democrats for not running a candidate who truly represents the platform and is willing to concede to the attacks and miscarriages of electoral process by a ruthless contender.

And also blame the Democrat controlled Congress who have sat on their hands for a year and a half. Bush is a terrible president and has been tragic, but Democrats are willing to look everywhere but THEMSELVES for not turning out in 2004, not holding their representatives accountable since 2006, and falling for manic hype over a poor candidate this round of election after the Rove-style myth that Hillary was unelectable. She would have been a mediocre president, but if Obama manages to survive the hail of hate thrown his way to inauguration, it is highly likely people will yearn for Clinton by 2010.

Nader earned his votes in 2000, and Gore should have made a real effort to earn the votes that were cast for him rather than relinquish to the other half of electoral dynasty. Our democracy has been hijacked since 1988 and no one seems to care, they just worry about the letter by the name of the person - watch how all the GOP haters will preach undying love for McCain by November.

By the way, don't blame Nader for the deaths in Iraq - the key sponsor of the Lieberman-Kyl resolution to go to war was the VP nominee for the Democratic party, and endorsed "100 years in Iraq" McCain, or have you forgotten that inconvenient truth?

Posted by: Junis Feztghler | February 24, 2008 9:58 PM

Now you have a choice, the lesser of 3 evils.

Since Hillary will no longer be a threat to the republicans or democrats, who else can screw up both parties.

Give Nader a chance. What the hell, it couldn't be any worse than the last 7... could it?

Posted by: Ralph | February 24, 2008 10:30 PM

My sentiments exactly. Examine his donor carefully. Republicans must be doing their happy dance. A pox on Nader AND the Republicans.

Is he being paid by the republicans to run?

Posted by: mike | February 2

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 10:45 PM

Over the course of human history, seldom have been the times when the actions of a single individual affect the whole of humanity and alter the destiny of civilization itself. Mr. Nader, I firmly believe that this is one of those times. Never have I felt so strongly about any idea, never have I possessed such clarity of thought and such narrowness of purpose as I do today. Today, my mind's eye is focused with laser-like precision on your announcement to enter the 2008 presidential race.

It is my belief that your candidacy will, in time, bring about the end of humanity. I believe that, as the last remaining human gasps the final breath of our species' existence on earth, this moment in time will be seen as the beginning of the end for us. Today is the day that mankind's last best hopes were dashed by the entirely self-centered actions of a single man, an old man hoping to float atop the crest of a wave of significance one last time before his death.

I believe that you will succeed in riding that wave, Ralph. I really hope you enjoy it. It is a tidal wave, your tidal wave, and it is going to destroy America.

Just so we're clear, I hold you personally responsible for almost every single problem in the world today. The past 8 years of increases in global warming rests squarely on your shoulders. The war in Iraq? Completely your fault. Millions of innocent people starving and dying in Darfur? Your hands are soaked with their blood. Your campaign in 2000 started us down this path, and your 2004 campaign ensured that it continued. And now, just as before, your 2008 campaign will provide the final catalyst to end this experiment called the United States of America and bring about the eventual destruction of our species.

I'm sure that you will disagree, as you always do, because you're completely self-absorbed, and you're a liar. You spend so much time lying about how you don't think you're a "spoiler" when you know that is precisely what you are. You are not an idiot, Ralph, and the American public is not as stupid as you think they are. I am certainly not stupid enough to believe your disingenuous statements on the subject. You got up this morning knowing full well that your announcement would hurt the Democrats' chances of winning back the presidency and would ONLY hurt the Democrats. That is called being a spoiler.

It's time to hang it up, Ralph. It's time to get off the stage. It's time to stop deciding for everyone else that you are more important than you really are. You are not important. You are a spoiler, and you are ruining America. You are narcissist and a phony and you need to go home. Find something to do with your time that doesn't affect the rest of us. Go write a memoir that nobody will read. Go do anything else, just get the hell out of our way.

I really hope you decide to drop out of the race tomorrow. I know you won't, so God help us all.

Posted by: Sam | February 24, 2008 11:02 PM

Gosh, I never knew Ralph Nader was responsible for so much.

It seems he's responsible for the Iraq war, although it takes a nation to go to war. Citizens can mass protest, and certainly in the following election 1 year later they can throw the President who started it out of office.

Yet WE re-elected Bush. And then we voted in the Democrats in 06 who have done nothing.

The Iraq war is OUR fault. It continues to be our fault.

Among us war protesting democrats, more people turn out to hear Obama talk about stopping the war than actually marching in the street to stop it now!

Stop blaming Nader for our own incompetence!

Posted by: Comment | February 24, 2008 11:02 PM

the electoral system of the usa stinks and the power is controlled in a monopoly of two-party collusion:

nader doesn't attempt to charm you, that's why he is rejected. americuds want their leader to be wranglers, not wonks.

there ought to be a dozen candidates, majority wins, national election. get rid of that electoral college nonsense and different rules state to state!

vote by mail. oregon loves it.

Posted by: forest | February 24, 2008 11:30 PM

Can any of the Nader supporters here address what their candidate might do should he win the election? How would he get any legislation passed?

If he feels wants to actually change things on the national level, let him run for the House or Senate. Still unlikely he'd win, but much more likely than his ever being elected president. A single vote in the Senate is a -lot- of power... how better to get Democrats to actually do what you want them to do?

Third/multiple party candidacies are a fine thing on the local level, or even state, where they have a chance of actually getting making their agendas happen. They're worse than a joke when it comes to the presidency.

- an independent, supporting Clinton, but who will gladly vote for Obama if he gets the Democratic nomination

Posted by: Post reader | February 24, 2008 11:32 PM

He single handedly gave the world 8 years of Bush misrule, is responsible for 4,000 deaths in Iraq, handed over Bush on a silver platter...Wow, if the guy didn't have a big head, he sure does now. You're giving one human way too much credit here.

You yelling, whiney, nasty Dems make me sick. Go back to your corners and pat each other on the head and wipe each other's tears away, think of other ways you can put him down for his age, for speaking the truth, or for his so-called "ego". Then, how about if you slap each other in the face so you can wake up?

The 3 so-called "front runners" are ALL filthy and they need to be exposed. Nader's trying to wake you America, you idiots. He doesn't like McPain any more than the rest. Did you even stop to read his statement: "You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication he's the candidate for perpetual war?"

And, by the way, America is a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY - look it up sometime.

Go put your little girlie-panties back on and suck your thumbs...

Posted by: DLW | February 24, 2008 11:37 PM

Before we blame Nader for Gore's loss, please remember that even more important was the trashing of Gore by the MSM, especially female reporters/columnists like Ceci Connolly (WP), Kit Seelye(NYT), and Maureen Dowd (NYT).
Then we had the rest of the MSM making stuff up (remember Gore "sighing" at the debate) and Internet, Naomi Wolff, earth tones, Love Story, Love Canal, etc......
Read it and weep at

One of the most disgusting things I remember from the 2000 election were the comments of Steve Roberts (hubby of Cokie).
On an early morning ABC radio program the day after the election (heard on WMAL 630AM), Steve said Nader was unpatriotic and unAmerican (for causing Steve's buddy Al Gore to lose).

Of course, Steve was silent about the loony behaviour of his journalist buddies.

Posted by: Ted | February 25, 2008 12:22 AM

What a ridiculous man! Ralph Nader's name once meant something principled and good. Hard to think of him now as anything but a vain and attention-hungry man grasping for the last straws of relevancy. Very sad...

Posted by: Khanh Nguyen | February 25, 2008 2:48 AM

I wonder how much pressure was exerted to Mr. Nader on the Carl Rove's Rack of torture. Further it seems to fit the latter's m/o whereby the republicans are desperate enough to try anything and everything to steal the election again just like they stole it from Al Gore. This situation has the republican dirty tricksmeister Carl Rove and neocons fingerprints all over it. Have they no shame.

Posted by: fslearjet | February 25, 2008 8:25 AM

I listened to Ralph Nader's speech when I took part, Sept. 15,2007 as 100,000 people marched on Washington D.C. in protest of the war and the Bush administration.

He knows he doesn't stand a chance of winning the election. He also knows it is the Democrats who are looking for a change and therefore it is the democratic vote that will be divided.

Since we are living in a time when election machines are rigged and people are being excluded from the vote, Nader is a threat. That 2-4% who vote for him are giving way for the Republicans to maintain power.

We need to ask Nader, who's side is he on? His speech suggested something much different that his actions. I thought you were working with us Ralph. Turns out you are working against us.

Posted by: Sandy M | February 25, 2008 11:21 AM

This jerk is back again?? doesn't care if he spoils the democrats chance to win (again???)Anyone that votes for this idiot is doing it as a protest against the other candidates, that would be the ONLY reason to vote for this egomaniac.

Posted by: bobyoung | February 25, 2008 12:00 PM

Well, here we go again. It seems that once again, Ralph Nader will have the opportunity to ruin yet another election. For all we know, if Nader would not have run in 2000, Al Gore would be present and we would not be in Iraq right now. That is the past though, so I think it is important to focus on the present.

Currently, we have a pretty firm idea of who the Republican nominee for President is going to be, John McCain. It is still up in the air though about who will be the Democratic nominee for President. Currently, Barack Obama is in the lead over Hillary Clinton, and with his momentum, most say that he has a strong chance at becoming the nominee. If he were to become the nominee, polls show that if independent voters had to choose between Obama or John McCain, majority of voters would choose Obama. Now, it is no secret that Obama does well in garnering support from independent voters. So, it is obvious that Nader's candidacy for presidency would inadvertently hinder Obama's bid for President. Even though I am an Obama supporter, I cannot forget about Hillary Clinton. I don't support Clinton, but I am a Democrat, and I will rally behind our nominee, no matter who is. With that in mind, if Clinton were to face off against John McCain, Nader's bid would still affect this race. Polls have already shown that if the general election were to come down to Clinton and McCain, McCain would definitely win. With Nader making it a three person race, Clinton would have no chance and winning those undecided voters to compete with McCain.

So, I am pleading with Mr. Nader. If you by some divine intervention happen to read this blog, please drop out of this race. You have made no headway in your previous bids for President, and I, as a college student, would not like to suffer four more years of anything that resembles President Bush's administration just because you feel that you represent those who are not represented.

Posted by: Marcus B | February 25, 2008 2:20 PM

The major problem with many arguments here is that you are bashing a man whose views are not swayed by public opinion polls and focus groups but rather by a core sense of decency. Nader not only speaks his mind based on what he sees as true injustices in our country but also offers solutions. One day the populace will wake up and kick themselves for not making decent choices when they were given the opportunity...

Posted by: Lee | February 25, 2008 4:09 PM

To Mr. Nader, What do you have to offer the American People? So far the only thing you are remembered for is, I don't have a clue.Someone is paying this man to do this. It do not make sense. He will not win.

Posted by: Misglo | February 25, 2008 4:27 PM



Posted by: Doreen | February 25, 2008 5:55 PM

If Nader is smart, as someone here said he was, then he is evil. He is either totally stupid not to see how much harm his ego driven campaign in 2000 caused to all of us in the past 7+ years, or he is an evil undercover agent of the ultra right wing republicans. His 2000 campaign was mostly financed by republican donations, and this one will be no different. I for one have no interest in having him in the debates, there should be no room there for a professional paid spoiler.

Posted by: simon | February 26, 2008 1:50 AM

A better home you say Angry African?

Lets see how much better South Africa is...

50 people murdered everyday (and thats only the reported ones)

Rape of thousands of woman, children and BABIES every year

Corrupt inefficient government...

Failing infrastructure (Eskom anyone? Shutting down the mines? I mean come on!)

Highest AIDS rate in the world

Uncontrolled illegal immigration

Yeah, much much better off

Posted by: Ex-Saffer | February 26, 2008 2:41 PM

The Ralph Nader supporters are preaching democratie, and supposedly we the Democrates don't understand politics. The reality is: 0.5% is a clear parameter for any idiot, secundo , you "The Ralphies" have to understand how the senate and congress work, before you insult people for their lack of understanding, send Ralph to congress, then he can start explaining his concerns to law makers, then I will support him, otherwise nada, zilch, zero as you Ralphies framed it. The stakes are high this time, and Obama has the africain wisdom in his geenes, to let Ralph go on the loose again. You just relax, and choose wisdom over hysteria.

Posted by: tchalala | February 27, 2008 1:34 PM

Who is to say Gore would have done much better than Bush? I mean the odds are in his favor but not a gimme. Would 9-11 have happened, probably. Would we then be in Afghanistan, likely. Iraq, well it was the Clinton policy to look for an opportunity to go for regime change so, maybe. Would the environment be any better, there is a chance, but the corporate control of the government was strong then still is, could Gore have convinced the Re-thugs and Exxon's lobbyists to change their mind, I doubt it. We don't know what would have happened.

My hope is that Obama does not follow the strategy of Kerry & Gore, and keep anyone who was advising those campaigns 100 miles away from him. Rather than wasting resources, time and public image, vilifying Nader and eating your own, pull from his ideas, the man never sleeps and has tons of them and use them.

Kerry met with Nader, and Nader said "Use me as an excuse to go to the left" and was told by Kerry to go to hell. Look how that worked out. Obama is proving in the primaries that maybe idealism has worked as a better campaign strategy after all, over the play it safe go to the right play, and the Dem's have not though about that since the 70's.

Posted by: Alex35332 | February 28, 2008 3:56 PM

Obama was asked 4 years ago about running for president and he said he wanted someone with experience for the job (not himself) ...So what has he learned or what has he done to gain that experience in the 4 years since???

This ad simply clarifies her(the)point!

Better take a long hard look before you vote for someone that will surely not win against Mccain. We already know everything about Hillary...the Bill stuff is old.

But the arsenal for Obama is full of everything from anti semetic ties to his nut-job minister to charges of gay sex with limo drivers. Get ready Obamadrones! This guy has not been tested or put through the ringer yet. He has been given pretty much a free pass by the media.

The viciousness and mean spirited attacks on Hillary by Obama supporters has turned me off to him and the whole process. I will vote for Nader if he is on the ballot or maybe nobody at all. I am a dem and I don't want Mccain but I think he will win in the national election.

The Democrats are losers no matter what because if either Hillary gets the nom or Obama, one side within the party will be angry and will feel like they lost. That means alot of people will probably just not vote.

Posted by: cleocat | February 29, 2008 12:23 PM

Nader will WIN and charm the American people.
In the past presidents have come from British or Eastern Europe lines, but he will be the first with GREEK Ancestry. Who else has a Phi Beta Kappa.

Posted by: Tar | March 2, 2008 4:33 PM

Why the Washington Post hasn't do fact checking an allegation that Ralph Nader and Mark Penn did smoke crack and have sex with another man( Larry Sinclair) in 1999?

Posted by: Andy | March 2, 2008 7:57 PM

Nader you will WIN and charm the American people. Please keep going against ALL opposition and you will succeed.
Past Presidents have been of British or Eastern European lines but one will come, like yourself, of GREEK ancestry.
Who else of your opponents has a Phi Beta Kappa.
WARNING The Seventh Seal has opened and you may NOT be able to take office if the All Mighty decides
to cleanse America of wickedness with another World war.
see Woe 2,(Rev.9:15) and Micah 5:10-14
Vision of George Albert Smith about 1950

Posted by: Tar | March 2, 2008 8:01 PM

Ralph You have a legal right to run for office, but I just wish you would put the good of our country ahead of your personal ambition. If this should happen I'm sure you will gain the respect of the American people! Your cause is just but not worth the anguish it can cause! By the way do you still ware those old combat boots?

Posted by: jfisher23 | March 3, 2008 1:27 AM

Dear Mr.President NADER
You will WIN, due to the fact this time you will feel the backing of the ALLMIGHTY. 62 years ago our Prophet in a vision saw a President
of GREEK ancestry. Unfoutunately you will face His enemies also.
To learn of the dream go to:

Posted by: Tar | March 3, 2008 1:09 PM

Posted by: Tar | March 3, 2008 1:18 PM

Assuming that Obama is the democratic nominee, Ralph Nader will surprise everybody by using his platform to campaign for Obama and try to get people to not vote for McCain. Nader wants Obama to win. That's for sure. If anybody had anything to do with urging Nader to run, it would have been Obama. People need to see through this so they are not fooled by this tactic.

Posted by: PS | March 10, 2008 9:38 PM

Nader ran '92, '96, '00, '04, '08 It is not his third time!

Posted by: reporto | March 11, 2008 10:03 PM

57boyy3rczudo > av08az3ei7uxi [URL=] hchypjpjb7h11ug [/URL] frgonkj0

Posted by: rab7n0a75a | March 18, 2008 2:44 AM

Nader, stop destrouying America by helping the Republicans, if you really wanted to help America, all you had to do was not run in 2000, you are doing the same idiotic thing again, shut up and sit down.

Instead spend that money on fixing your stupid buggy out of focus eyes.

Posted by: Rick Shaw | March 23, 2008 7:28 PM

emfi uwaos hiejg zwlev facs pfey sqmtzfgy

Posted by: whislayp vcyoxtfq | May 2, 2008 4:43 AM

grdhibzy ravbxnmfk wyxtb dawluokqf vozanbph hfxmdczpw yuih

Posted by: bkqajnow yvud | May 2, 2008 4:43 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company