Ralph: Don't Run!

Dear Ralph,

Your decision to run for President as a third-party candidate in 2008 leads me to resend our Open Letter to you, published in The Nation in 2004.

As we wrote then, "you've been part of The Nation family for a long time, from the day in 1959 when we published one of your first articles, the expose of "The Safe Car You Can't Buy." We think of you as Public Citizen Number One--a courageous advocate for consumer rights who has consistently challenged predatory corporate power. But your great strength-- and success--as a crusader has come from working outside of electoral politics.

Ralph, why run in 2008, when the stakes are clear, with John McCain calling for continuing the war for 100 years and sustaining the Bush economic policies that have ruined our country? To expose the issue of ballot access as a civil rights issue? It should be exposed. But why not use your pulpit and street cred as Citizen Number One, not as a candidate, to drive this issue, and others progressives care about, into our public debate and campaign? When the overwhelming mass of progressive voters have only one focus--beating back another disastrous four or eight years of conservative rule--your perceived role as a spoiler is likely to attract far more attention than the valuable issues you raise. As we wrote in 2004, by running, "your efforts to raise neglected issues will hit a deafening headwind."

Then there is the generational issue. I suspect that millions, especially young people who have been energized and politicized by Barack Obama's campaign, who might otherwise listen to (and benefit from) the issues you've championed as Public Citizen Number One will tune out and turn off Candidate Nader. For someone who inspired a generation of Nader's Raiders and mobilized a new generation of voters to flock to your "super rallies" in 2000, think of how much more you could do to inform and engage a new generation if you did not run for President this year.

Look around: no one, including former strong supporters, called on you to run this year. Doesn't that deafening silence say something? In 2004, the last time you ran, in a year with the largest turnout of voters in recent history, you received only 0.3 percent of the nationwide vote --down from 2.7 percent in 2000. And this year, as a result of beyond-the-beltway progressives driving their issues to the forefront of the Democratic agenda, both candidates pledge to bring the troops home,to push for national health insurance, to reinvest in America, roll back tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations and use that money in the drive for new energy, affordable college, investment in education. The stakes in 2008 are clear.

You, above all, understand that until we bust open this duopoly--and its barriers to candidate access and citizen participation--your candidacy may appear to millions as having more to do with ego than changing this country. This country needs Ralph Nader to be Public Citizen Number One--not a presidential candidate after eight years of disastrous war and ruinous economic policy. Lead a Democracy Reconstruction project! Become a crusading duopoly buster--fighting to rewire the anti-democratic hardwiring of our political system.

We respect the historic contributions you've made to make this a better and safer nation. We know you've never been one to back down from a fight. But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. This run may well jeopardize your legacy. If you get even fewer votes than last time, the media may say it means your issues were not important.

As we wrote in 2004, in our Open Letter below, "For the good of the country, the many causes you've championed and for your own good name, don't run for President this year."

????

An Open Letter to Ralph Nader By The Editors Dear Ralph,

According to the latest news reports, you've pushed up your self-imposed deadline for announcing your decision about an independent 2004 presidential campaign from the end of January to mid-February. We're glad to hear that, because maybe it means you're still not sure about the best path to follow. For the good of the country, the many causes you've championed and for your own good name--don't run for President this year.

Ralph, you've been part of the Nation family for a long time, from the day in 1959 we published one of your first articles, the exposé of "The Safe Car You Can't Buy." Since then, you've been a consistent advocate for active citizenship, investigative scholarship and environmental stewardship. It wasn't hype when we called you Public Citizen Number One.

We know you've never been one to back down from a fight. When people tell you you can't do something, if you think it's the right thing to do, you do it anyway. That stubborn devotion to principle is one of your greatest strengths. It inspired a generation of Nader's Raiders in the 1960s and '70s, it helped produce notable victories like the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and it inspired a new generation of young people who flocked to your "super rallies" in 2000. The issues you raise on your website, NaderExplore04.org--full public financing of elections, new tools to help citizens band together, ending poverty, universal healthcare, a living wage, a crackdown on corporate crime--are vital to the long-term health of our country. When those issues are given scant attention by major-party candidates and ignored or trivialized by the sham joint candidate appearances known as presidential debates, we join in your outrage.

But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons--opposition to the war, Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats--there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968.

The context for an independent presidential bid is completely altered from 2000, when there was a real base for a protest candidate. The overwhelming mass of voters with progressive values--who are essential to all efforts to build a force that can change the direction of the country--have only one focus this year: to beat Bush. Any candidacy seen as distracting from that goal will be excoriated by the entire spectrum of potentially progressive voters. If you run, you will separate yourself, probably irrevocably, from any ongoing relationship with this energized mass of activists. Look around: Almost no one, including former strong supporters, is calling for you to run, compared with past years when many veteran organizers urged you on.

If you run, your efforts to raise neglected issues will hit a deafening headwind. The media will frame you as The Spoiler. It's also safe to predict that you will get far fewer votes than the 2.8 million you garnered in 2000, and not only because your rejection of the Green Party raises expensive new hurdles to getting your name on state ballots. A recent online survey by the progressive news site AlterNet.org found that only one in nine respondents said they'd vote for you if you run this year, a 60 percent drop-off from the number who said they voted for you in 2000. If you run and get a million votes or fewer, the media will say it means your issues were not important. This can only hurt those causes, not to mention the tangible costs another run may impose on the many public-interest groups tied to you.

You have said your candidacy could actually help Democrats by raising issues against Bush that a Democratic candidate would avoid and by boosting turnout for good candidates for the House and Senate, where the slender bulwarks against Bushism must be reinforced. But these arguments do not compel a candidacy by you. As a public citizen fighting for open debates and rallying voters to support progressive Democrats for Congress, or good independents or Greens for that matter, you can have a far more productive impact than as a candidate dealing with recriminations about being a spoiler or, worse, an egotist. And the very progressives distressed by the prospect of your candidacy would contribute eagerly to have that voice amplified.

And if you think that this year you can help the anti-Bush cause by running and peeling off disgruntled Republicans, McCainiacs, Perotistas and the like while not disrupting the Democratic charge, please be honest with yourself. Once upon a time, maybe as late as 1992, when you dallied with a "none of the above" campaign and got 2 percent of the vote in New Hampshire from write-ins in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, your appeal stretched across the political spectrum. No longer, alas. Your nephew, Tarek Milleron, wrote recently that if you run in 2004 it will be "the year of the Elks clubs, the garden clubs, meetings with former Enron employees, the veterans groups, Wal-Mart employees," not progressive super rallies. But how many Elks club presidents are inviting you to speak? How many veterans groups? Such relationships take time to build and can't be conjured out of thin air in the midst of a presidential campaign.

You once told us you play chess at many levels at once. For all we know, you're thinking of running hard and then, if the race is close, throwing your support to the Democrat in the final days. While such a tactic might make for a satisfying conclusion to an otherwise futile quest, we don't think it justifies the risks, antagonism, confusion and contortions that such a run would entail.

Ralph, please think of the long term. Don't run.

Comments (218)

1. Winter ReRun????

   Not very `liberal'!!

   Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 11:07am

2. Nader is getting old and this is his last chance to get attention and get his ego stroked by running, so he will run.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 11:16am

3. Hear, hear. Whatever tenuous justification Ralph had for splitting the Dem vote in 2000 is long past. We're faced with an unprecidented crisis, and this decision is the epitome of egoism. His presidential bid is pure hubris, no more, no less.

   Posted by stjohns at 02/25/2008 @ 11:23am

4. Thanks Kat, I'm glad to see that The Nation is willing to take a stand in the best interest of our country, and pitch this to the progressive readers who think Ralph running is a good thing.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 11:26am

5. I hope other progressive publications agree.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 11:27am

6. I like this analysis:

   http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27171709

   Posted by bridoc at 02/25/2008 @ 11:57am

7. I encourage Nader to run! I'm hoping he'll siphon off votes from Cynthia McKinney. Ralph, the Green Spoiler!

   Posted by sntauri at 02/25/2008 @ 11:59am

8. Haven't read KVH article, but based on the title I can see that the progressives at The Nation are afraid of getting progressive issues heard and would rather be represented by the entrenched dems they so often use up ink and electrons attempting to push to the left.

   Yes, after all of the anti-Hillary articles, I can see why she would be a better choice than a true progressive that actually has gotten things changed.

   Yep, makes sense to me.

   c'mon all, lets keep the country that is the alleged Leader of the Free World voting for the lessor of two weevels!!! Who needs more than 2 options? Thats' 100% more choice than Cubans and Chinese communist get. But about 2% of the choice the "free" Iraqis were offered.

   america been berry, berry good to me.

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 12:02pm

9. Why do folks like Ms vanden Heuvel and Mr Nichols CONTINUE to keep thinking that Nader is merely naive in these runs...

   and not on a huge ego trip?

   Nostalgia for the "old Ralph"?

   Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:02pm

10. Posted by CRABWALK 02/25/2008 @ 12:02pm

    The CRABWALK Nader Contradiction-

    1. "Nader won't hurt the Dem nominee...he only got 0.3% in 2004...stop worrying!"

    2. "Nader's campaign will be so important and influential, it'll force Obama to become more progressive to stave off Nader's formitable challenge!"

    which is it?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:05pm

11. Posted by ZERO 02/25/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Plus, I hear she's an "upper middle class feminist"!!!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:06pm

12. Give it a rest. If Obama is a the nominee, what harm is there in Nader's input? After all, he will bring up the taboo subjects not open for discussion. And if Clinton should somehow grab that golden ring--by hook or bt crook, how dare you.

    This is the same treatment you gave Sheehan that she would think to participate and that she should mind her place on the outside. How about starting with showing some of our true progressives a little respect or are you really just self-loathing Liberals?

    Posted by Lil at 02/25/2008 @ 12:10pm

13. Lil-Why can't you "true" progressives come up with someone who isn't a pathetic attention seeker?Is that what a true progressive is?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 12:13pm

14. How come you accept the manufactured consensus that anyone that would dare think to actually DO SOMETHING such as speak truth to power or address the issues by direct confrontation is some kind of ego manic or "attention whore" (that was Cindy Sheehan, remember?). This is the kind of mindset that the Right conjures up in their well-funded think-tanks to destroy any dissent or challenge to their criminal agenda. Imagine what they would call Martin Luther King JR for his grand attention seeking--maybe "uppity nigger", huh? Yet, at the same time, there is no running commentary or kneejerk reaction regarding the Clintons belief that the nomination is their inevitable right--or even a mention of the greedy criminal egos on the Right just those unapologetic, nonconforming progressives who courageously battle on while being stoned by those whose interests they champion.

    You ain't nothing by a sucker. A sheeplike sucker.

    Posted by Lil at 02/25/2008 @ 12:24pm

15. Ralph Nader...just an ego these days.

    If he thinks 0.3% was a poor showing, think of what 0.003% will look like.

    For the record, Nader running for PotUS is nothing more than an ego trip, and his alone. One last pathetic attempt to be "relevant".

    It is a sad day when we see what was, at one time, a hero of the citizenry, become nothing more than the brunt of a bad joke.

    Sit down Ralph, and take a look...no matter what you think you can do, reality dictates that you are pushing yourself into little more than rancid obsurity.

    Posted by rasputin195 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:30pm

16. As I was saying...

    Any question why people become apathetic when actually doing something other than voting means you are stepping out of line and consumed by a momentous ego. Now, folks, if you know what is good for you, sit down, stay down, and whatever you do, don't make waves.

    Posted by Lil at 02/25/2008 @ 12:34pm

17. "Hey everyone! I'm Mask! I am here with 400 posts per thread, all babbling just to hear my own voice and see my name in print! "----Posted by ZERO 02/25/2008 @ 12:07pm

    LOL!....ZERO, count my posts and yours on this thread (include this one if you like)!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:36pm

18. Yeah, so much for a transformational politics...

    Posted by Lil at 02/25/2008 @ 12:39pm

19. I'm of two minds about Nader's running. First, does his running press the issues his supporters feel is important to the forefront of the other candidates? Do they have to acknowledge his base in their campaigns because he's thrown his hat in the ring? (Even though even he admits he has no chance of winning).

    Second, I think Katrina may have a point. If he gets even less % of votes this time around, does that marginalize the issues his supporters feel are so important that he needs to run?

    So I guess it comes down to a question. Are the issues that are important to you, Mr. Nader, so vital that you will risk marginalization of those same issues for the opportunity to tout them from a platform of running for President?

    Personally, I don't have a problem with him running. The more the merrier I say. I don't think the Nader votes kept Gore from the whitehouse. I think our electorial system is screwed and needs re-vamping, for sure, (how can someone win the popular vote of the people of the U.S. and still not win an election?) but I also think Gore would have won if less (fewer) people voted for Bush or more people voted for Gore. Seriously, if Nader hadn't run in 2000, would his voters have actually showed up at the polls at all?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/25/2008 @ 12:45pm

20. Zero-I did not know I felt rage until you told me just like I didn't know that I was a socialist/communist until people on the right told me that I was.I did not know that I was a Hillary supporter until you told me I was.I thought that I wasn't going to vote for either Hillary or McCain if they got the nominations.I don't care if Nader needs attention and wants his ego stroked one more time and runs anymore than I care if someone wants to write in their own name and vote for themselves.If Obama gets the nomination then Nader will be meaningless,but if Hillary gets the nomination then I don't care which one wins and don't care about Nader and votes he would take from Hillary.Nader is quite irrelevant as far as I'm concerned and is just a joke candidate.Kind of like Jerry Rubin.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 12:47pm

21. Seriously, if Nader hadn't run in 2000, would his voters have actually showed up at the polls at all?----Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/25/2008 @ 12:45pm

    Nader had 93,000 voters in Florida. If 0.7% of them had shown up to vote for Gore, with no Nader in the mix....Gore would have surpassed even the "Katherine Harris" count of Florida in 2000 and won.

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:58pm

22. Nader can help Obama, not hurt him, by resonating support and agreement on vital specific issues important to ordinary voters. If Democrats do not have the guts, the honesty, the integrity to ardently advance the 'hard core' interests of the ordinary consumer-taxpayer-citizen-voter then they don't deserve to be in the WhiteHouse. The Democrat Party needs to understand "The gig is up." No more election victories based on glittering generalities and empty promises not lived up to. If the Democrat Party fails to wake up to this realization, it WILL be relocated to political oblivion, where it belongs. They seem to have no learning curve. Anyone who is against Nader ... anyone who attacks Nader's issues, is NOT a candidate who is in the people's best interests, as far as we're concerned.

    In the meantime, we say, "Nader Please DO run for President" and tear the mask off these counterfeit hollow shibboleths and empty promises that in days past, used to translate into votes resulting in disappointed voters.

    Posted by New_Deal at 02/25/2008 @ 1:17pm

23. It's troubling that The Nation, one of the leading voices of the progressive community, is once again seeking to repress the candidacy of a well-established citizen whose political beliefs closely mirror The Nation's own. Equally disturbing is The Nation's reluctance to ever support the candidacy of a strong Progressive. In the current election cycle, Dennis Kucinich, and to a lesser extent John Edwards, ran campaigns with solid progressive platforms. Yet The Nation ignored both of these men in favor of promoting the moderate centrist campaigns of Obama and Clinton. While some of the coverage of Hillary Clinton was investigative and critical in nature, it was still coverage--as opposed to the complete absence of coverage provided to Kucinich. It seems that the only time progressive media like The Nation gives Kucinich coverage, it's to scold his supporters for following a candidate who "can't win." In this election cycle, the progressive media was just as bad as the mainstream media in marginalizing Kucinich, and to a lesser extent Edwards. The sad truth is that The Nation, like Move On.org and other progressive groups, are so desperate to associate with "the winner" that it sells out its values and supports candidates whose policies are anathema to progressive beliefs. God forbid a true progressive like Kucinich or Nader exercises his right to run for public office. The Nation will immediately scold them and make sure all of its readers know that these candidates "can't win." No wonder progressives never get anywhere. They abandon men of principle in a rush to support candidates who are moderates at best. It's very discouraging. Will The Nation ever support anyone except the lesser of two evils?

    At least Nader's running will give Eric Alterman another chance to make an ass of himself with one of his diatribes against an authentic progressive hero. I've been reading The Nation for over twenty years, and it seems to be happening more and more that the editorial perspective represents the mainstream views of the Democratic Party and all of its pandering to the financial elites. Yes, there are reasons not to vote for Ralph Nader, but for God's sake, Nation, for once can you show some guts and actually SUPPORT a progressive instead of telling readers how they should vote against their values and support a corporate-approved centrist like Kerry and Obama/Clinton?

    Posted by Chuck 22A at 02/25/2008 @ 1:18pm

24. Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 12:02pm

    Any evidence?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:37pm

    Sure seems to me that Katrina and the Nation don't actually want a breakaway from the 2 current parties and their domination of the political process.

    I agree with you. I'd also suggest that this means that next time you are thinking about calling "The Nation" the far-left, you consider this point.

    Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 12:58pm

    We've heard all your tired arguments before. Gore was a less compelling candidate, running on a more of the same platform and lost. End of story.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 1:27pm

25. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:37pm

    More agreement between us.

    Posted by CHUCK 22A 02/25/2008 @ 1:18pm

    well said!!

    run Ralph, run.

    Squirm dems, squirm

    MASK, I have no idea what % Nader will draw. What I do know is that he has the right to run, he has the money to run, he has the name to run. for you to attempt to dissuade him is...well... Ba-athist. especially you who mock lefties for failing to support real lefties instead of fake lefties like... sherrod Brown

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 1:28pm

26. I'd also suggest that this means that next time you are thinking about calling "The Nation" the far-left, you consider this point.

    hehe.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 1:30pm

27. it is precisely due to this sentiment that I let my subscription to the nation run out. why do affluent, ivory tower "progressives" continue to embrace centrists as saviors? Gore lost in '00 because he ran a horrible campaign, got a Reagan haircut and picked Joe Lieberman (!?!) as his running mate. No one could've predicted 9/11 and the carte blanche that it gave the current administration. I don't much care for GW but certainly no one running will be a continuation of that. And the last time I excitedly put my vote behind an inspirational, hopeful democrat was clinton '92 and his about-face on his campaign rhetoric birthed in me quite the cynic. I won't be fooled again. When all is said and done, Oprah and the rest of the entertainment left won't have to worry about foreclosures, health care, NAFTA, or any of the rest of these promises. What happened to principles?

    Posted by matttennessen at 02/25/2008 @ 1:37pm

28. SRJENKINS Gore was a less compelling candidate, running on a more of the same platform and lost. End of story.

    Not at all. Nader's vote total in Florida was a necessary, though not sufficient, cause of Bush getting into the White House in 2000. This time around I think Ms. Vanden Heuvel's plea is unnecessary because Nader is unlikely to do better than his sub-1% vote of 2004. I could understand the need to do such a letter last time because he did so much better in 2000, but now? As to the idea that he'll bring issues to the forefront, a candidate with the prospect of as few votes as he'll get really has little chance of that candidacy reaching anyone who wasn't following him anyway.

    Regarding the duopoly, that is a corollary of a presidential government/winner-take-all government/electoral system. Since a president will generally serve out his term (unlike a prime minister), coalitions don't generally mean anything since a minority party can't threaten to bring him down by withdrawing from the coalition. The winner-take-all system increases majority representation beyond the percentage of votes it got and has the opposite result for minority parties. The latter generally only break into the electoral column if they are tied to regional interests (compare the popular and electoral vote outcomes of Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond in 1948).

    Ultimately, the most effective way of strengthening third-party prospects isn't in Nader's quixotic and self-indulgent run but in instituting Instant Runoff Voting. I would think that having coherent and trustworthy ballots would have to precede that to avoid total chaos.

    The Electoral College isn't going anywhere in a hurry, by the way. There are more than 1/4 of the states that benefit from its presence so an amendment wouldn't have much of a future.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/25/2008 @ 1:38pm

29. Matttennessen-Are you referring to the Gore that won the popular vote?He must have run a horrible campaign in order to have won the popular vote.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 1:41pm

30. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/25/2008 @ 1:27pm

    Any evidence that this is an EGO-driven run and not "ideals"-driven?....Only if we accept that Ralph Nader is NOT stupid.

    If he is, then all bets are off and he may honestly think he's doing something that will "add" to the political discourse.

    If he isn't, then he realizes that (A) He can't win. (B) He can only draw votes that might go to Obama. (C) That given bad feelings among a TON of his 2000 voters, and the utter failure (0.37%) of his 2004 run, that he will likely (with Obama as Dem nominee) draw that 0.37 or LESS (more likely) and that his "impact" will be microscopic.

    Ergo, his run will fail....it will harm the left-of-center candidate more than the right-of-center candidate....and that harm will be negligible and his "stimulus" to Obama to run "more progressive" will be easily IGNORED given the tiny fraction of the vote he will draw.

    Now, given all that, and Nader being smart enough to figure that out for himself...what does his candidacy gain him? Well...first....he got to appear on "Meet The Press" on Sunday, something that probably WOULD NOT have happened, if he hadn't said he was running. He got on CNN's morning show this morning...see above. He'll probably get on Larry King and Wolf Blitzer's show. And he'll probably get every 1/2 hour show on FOX NEWS for a month.

    So, nothing politically substantive gained, but a LOT that balloons ol' Ralph's ego, huh?

    Note to you and CRABWALK....per a previous thread, I have already said "Screw it. Let Ralph run". This 3rd (or is it 5th?) run for President will finally establish him as either Harold Stassen...or Lyndon LaRouche in the public mind (the 99% of the public that aren't die-hard Naderite cultists, that is!)

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 1:44pm

31. i'm supporting jello biafra for the green nom...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm

32. I consider that it is highly probable that Nader will, again, receive most of his financial support from Republican operatives. In Connecticut, it was the Republicans who elected Joe Leiberman in the last election. Ralph Nader has gotten an awful lot of mileage out of his Corvair. Both he and the car should be considered antiques, ancient history, and certainly "unsafe at any speed" - especially for the United States at this juncture in its' history.

    Posted by ct democrat at 02/25/2008 @ 1:52pm

33. If the candidates will promise to get out of the WTO NAFTA , and similar Trade Agreements. If they will put in tariffs so high that the U.S. market won't be a dumping ground for cheap and unsafe products, behind witch we can rebuild our industrial base and jobs. If they will promise a single payer health plan that is cheaper than private enterprise. If they really get the Troops out of Iraq. If they do these thing they cannot lose the election, and Ralph will disappear. Ralph is running because Democratic Party is full of wimps, who can't take a position on anything that benefits the American people. The only branch of government that has a lower opinion rating than Bush is the Democratic lead congress who rollover for the Administration. If you don't do these things, Ralph won't disappear, and I will be voting for him in the Fall.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/25/2008 @ 2:00pm

34. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:52pm

    and this "majority of democrats" can be seen in the support for Obam and Clinton, but not in it's support for Kucinich and Nader.

    sure, Whatever you say, Mr. Mainstream.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 2:02pm

35. MASK, maybe Ralph has the bizzarre idea that if he gets in front of a camera somebody may hear him and say "Damn, that is right, why am I allowing myself to be swayed by Lehman Bros and Raytheon again?".

    but then again, as Zero has pointed out, Hillary and Obama don't have egos, so you must be correct.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 2:05pm

36. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm

    I LOVE green jello...with the little peaches cut up in it. Just like Grandma's!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:10pm

37. but then again, as Zero has pointed out, Hillary and Obama don't have egos, so you must be correct.---Posted by CRABWALK 02/25/2008 @ 2:05pm

    Hillary and Obama have reasonable, not "fantastical like unicorns landing bearing Greys from Zeta Reticuli" chances at becoming President.

    Or, if you want to argue that they have big egos and SO DOES RALPH...okay with me.

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:12pm

38. Bravo, Ralph Nader, for exposing Obama as the STATUS QUO. The democrats deserve to loose for supporting this right wing Zionist conspiracy in the shape of an angelic faced black man.

    Posted by nursevic at 02/25/2008 @ 2:15pm

39. Nursevic-So,Obama is now a right wing Zionist.Some people on the right say that he's a Muslim,but he says that he's a Christian so you guys need to get together and decide what religion he belongs to.I thought you supported Hillary.You know,the candidate who has a husband who said he would die for Israel even though he won't actually go over and fight for Israel..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 2:22pm

40. Cowards. You want to blame Nader for the inadequacy of our corrupt, undemocratic system? Wink, wink; nudge, nudge--inable the same good old boy system that has plagued this country since the rise of that old, senile salesman Reagan, as the government drifts more and more to the right, while the msm--with a straight face--refers to those that disagree as "radicals" blathering nonsense. A nation as diverse as ours is left with only the choice of the lesser of two evils? The electorate deserves better.

    Obama, I have to admit is attractive. He talks of "change" with sincerity, charisma, conviction, but it is all nothing more than empty talk, false promises? Will he pull a Bill Clinton, whisper sweet nothings in our ear as he gives corporate America whatever it wants at the expense of the vast majority of the population, just so the investor class can continue to benefit disproportionally?

    Stop blaming Nader for the failures of the Democratic Pary. All those that have sold out the working class, all the corporate whores, all the spineless politicians that only watch the polls are to blame for the miserable performance of the pary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 2:30pm

41. you negroes get off that lunch counter, you have no chance of ever being recognized as human beings!!

    Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 2:12pm

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 2:44pm

42. The democrats deserve to loose for supporting this right wing Zionist conspiracy in the shape of an angelic faced black man.----Posted by NURSEVIC 02/25/2008 @ 2:15pm

    FINALLY....we get the Average Naderite telling the truth of why they support ol' Ralph!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:57pm

43. Posted by CRABWALK 02/25/2008 @ 2:44pm

    I'll ask you, CRAB...Empty SPENCE won't answer.

    So...if Obama is the Dem nominee, are you voting for Nader instead?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:58pm

44. Hey, I'm nobody, Obama is not the antiwar champion. He was conveniently absent when the Senate was casting votes for the war. First he supported the Palestinian cause, then he supported the Israeli cause when he decided to run. Sounds like RIGHT WING on day one to me.

    Posted by nursevic at 02/25/2008 @ 3:02pm

45. The re-run of this "open letter" (by closed minds) is even more pathetic than Tim Russert's "interview" of Ralph on MEET THE PRESS on Sunday. Russert didn't respond at all to what Ralph was talking about - namely, the ISSUES that Obama, Billary and McCaine never address. Russert just brought out the old Dem playbook "How to Blithely Dismiss Ralph Nader and the Concerns of People Who Make Demands on Poor Democrats."
    Jürgen Vsych, Nader Campaign Filmmaker
    Author "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?" TheWomanDirector.com [thewomandirector.com]

    Posted by Jurgen Vsych at 02/25/2008 @ 3:07pm

46. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:52pm

    I'm to understand that the Democratic party is far left and anyone to the left of them is very far left - and you just forget to add the adjective "very" whenever convenient. I'm beginning to understand.

    However, I think you don't have a very firm grasp of history if you are going to suggest that the political discourse in the United States has moved to the "far left", much less "very far left" in recent decades. While I can understand how you might be nostalgic for McCarthy era purges, loyalty oaths and the like, we've simply have the same dog, different collar these days. Shoot, if I were a right-winger, I'd be slapping my fellows on the back about how well the whole thing has gone - after I got done talking about how the MSM is treating us so bad, denouncing those obviously bad as not "true" conservatives and crying crocodile tears in public about how life is so friggin' tough and how all those "limosine liberals" are snatching food out of my mouth in public. Boo-hoo.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 3:24pm

47. Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 1:44pm

    As usual, you miss the idea that perhaps the goal is to put pressure on the Democratic candidate to come left. You don't need to "win" the election to "win" it in a way that matters. Shoot, you could even argue that his "spoiler" in 2000 demonstrates the bankruptcy of "Third Way"/Republican-lite Democratic political platforms.

    Another point, it's not for us to "allow" Ralph to do anything. He is simply providing an alternative. you can choose him or not.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 3:28pm

48. Nursevic-Never said that Obama was the anti war champion.I voted for Obama in the primary,but I'm not a huge supporter.I preferred some of the others,but they were experienced and qualified so they were rejected.I was just reminding you that the Clinton camp is rather pro Israel as is,according to you,Obama.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 3:34pm

49. I was just reminding you that the Clinton camp is rather pro Israel as is,according to you,Obama.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY

    And how do you win the Dem nomination without being so?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 3:40pm

50. People are going to vote for whom they are going to vote for whether Nader is in the race or not. I thought being American is all about choice. If he has the money and supoort he should run.

    Posted by atcarr at 02/25/2008 @ 3:41pm

51. Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 2:58pm

    If Obama gets the nomination I will read his policy statements and then decide. Right now if I had to decide between an also-ran that says the right thing and has DONE the right thing for 30 years vs the O-train who talks a good game but gets his operating funds from the same corporate sponsors as the other Donklphants, I would "cost the democrats another election" by voting FOR something rather than against Mccain.

    ---

    Colonel Mask- "Ralph, you are the worst candidate I have ever heard of."

    Ralph, "ahh, but at least you've heard of me".

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 3:53pm

52. given the choice between the 50 ft Queenie and Obama...I go for Obama.

    But, alas, this is allegedly the home of the free...so I retain my right to vote for whomever I damn well please. I would note, that by your logic, everyone that ever voted for Gore or Kerry "wasted" their vote.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 3:55pm

53. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/25/2008 @ 3:28pm

    Okay, SRJ, you're more honest than the other two-

    1. What percentage of the vote do you expect Nader to get this year? MORE than the 0.37% he got in 2004? A LOT more, like his 2000 numbers? And what percentage would you think Obama (or Hillary) could safely ignore if it was so miniscule?

    2. Will YOU vote for Nader, even if Obama is the nominee and somehow "fails" to become even more progressive?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 3:58pm

54. Obama gets the nomination I will read his policy statements and then decide. Right now if I had to decide between an also-ran that says the right thing and has DONE the right thing for 30 years vs the O-train who talks a good game but gets his operating funds from the same corporate sponsors as the other Donklphants, I would "cost the democrats another election" by voting FOR something rather than against Mccain.

    Posted by CRABWALK

    Ditto. Now stop your incessant whining, mary. (Although why an omniscient being such as yourself could not figure that one out without any help I fail to understand.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:01pm

55. I would "cost the democrats another election" by voting FOR something rather than against Mccain.----Posted by CRABWALK 02/25/2008 @ 3:53pm

    Well, first, is that "code" for "I'll vote for Nader" when you don't want to come right out and say it?

    Second, Obama's policy statements are readily available at http://www.barackobama.com/issues....so what's stopping you from doing it now?

    Third, it was "Commodore" Norrington...not "Colonel". And the difference between Nader and Jack Sparrow is...Sparrow was actually a force to be reckoned with. Though you're right...they were always just out for themselves!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:02pm

56. Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 4:01pm

    Why do fail to support a guy you claim to support with a simple "Yes, even if Obama is the nominee and doesn't 'move more Left', I'll vote for Nader"?

    Would saying that, somehow, be a 'bad thing', Empty?!?!?!?!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:03pm

57. And you wonder why I call you mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:06pm

58. (Prediction-straight answer not forthcoming!)

    Posted by MASK

    Always insisting everyone answer your questions. Always.

    Answer this: Why are you against voters having more than two choices? Why do you feel men and women concerned with issues that conflict with corporate interests do not deserve a choice other than corporate sponsored candidate A or B? Why should America's working class have only a radical right wing candidate or a right of center candidate to vote for?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 11:04am

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:10pm

59. Why don't you instead make a plea to all the registered Democrats who will vote for McCain? They will surely number more than those who vote for Nader.

    I'm voting for Nader, if only to tick off my fellow progressives who think I shouldn't.

    Posted by Oxhead at 02/25/2008 @ 4:18pm

60. I'm thrilled that Nader is running. I only wish he'd made the decision/announcement last year, in time to mount a formidable campaign. As it stands, I think his entrance is only a calculated tactic to help Obama.

    Hillary has succeeded in marginalizing Obama in the minds of millions of white voters...millions more will simply refuse to cast their vote for Obama...Nader's presence will provide those racists an alternative to McCain, and increase Obama's chances. I think Nader realizes this, I think that's why he's mounting this (almost last-minute) effort.

    Posted by nicR at 02/25/2008 @ 4:25pm

61. Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 4:10pm

    Again, I asked you a question first...one you are LOATHE to answer, Empty of Answers.

    Want to play the game where I deign to answer YOUR question with the asked promise that you'll answer mine...and I post a response to your question, and you start discussing that while NEVER answering my original question, because I nailed it when I called you a coward, all talk about Nader, but NEVER a specific or clear statement of support?

    Okay...here goes (everybody watch this)

    Okay, Empty, happy to answer your SEVERAL questions...will you answer my question on a clear cut "yes or no" on voting for Nader if I do? I'll be generous and go first....

    "Answer this: Why are you against voters having more than two choices? Why do you feel men and women concerned with issues that conflict with corporate interests do not deserve a choice other than corporate sponsored candidate A or B? Why should America's working class have only a radical right wing candidate or a right of center candidate to vote for?"

    1. I'm not. Said earlier. Ralph SHOULD run, it'll prove that he's irrelevant.

    2. I don't. And if they are willing to waste their effort on a candidate who WILL NOT win, go for it.

    3. They don't. Anybody who thinks Obama is "right of center" so far to the Left as to be almost off the spectrum...like you.

    Now, your turn?

    If Obama is the Dem nominee, are you voting for Nader instead? Yes or No?

    (Remember, the predicted Empty response is...to discuss my answers to your questions, throw in ad hominems as necessary, and NOT to directly or clearly answer my question to you....begin!)

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:27pm

62. "I'm voting for Nader, if only to tick off my fellow progressives who think I shouldn't."----Posted by OXHEAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:18pm

    See how easy it is, Empty SPENCE? Want to try it yourself?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:28pm

63. Perhaps you are too young to remember what the Democratic Party looked like in the 50's and 60's.

    Strong on military issues, willing to cut taxes, more limited Federal government.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:39pm

    "more limited Federal government"?!!??!!?

    Didn't you say on a thread just a few days ago that you thought everything done since the New Deal (1930s) was part of a socialist agenda?!?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:50pm

64. (Remember, the predicted Empty response is...to discuss my answers to your questions, throw in ad hominems as necessary, and NOT to directly or clearly answer my question to you....begin!)

    Posted by MASK

    If you know it all, then why do you require an answer from me?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:51pm

65. Poor little alpha female mary. She wants to run everything.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:56pm

66. Remember, the predicted Empty response is...to discuss my answers to your questions, throw in ad hominems as necessary, and NOT to directly or clearly answer my question to you....begin!)

    Posted by MASK

    If you know it all, then why do you require an answer from me?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 4:51pm

    "I won't clearly answer about voting for Nader and prove you wrong, because it'll prove that you were right if I continue to not answer!"?!?!??!

    Dang, Empty, never thought of that...pre-emptive surrender!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:59pm

67. Given the same information and similar perspective, I possibly would have agreed with KVH a few years ago.

    Depending on your circumstances, there can be a certain disconnect between what's so wrong today in our country and what needs to be done. That is, you can have all of the right information and an excellent analysis of how bad things really are---but it's a different matter entirely if you're actually living how bad things really are.

    It truly is a matter of walking in someone elses shoes.

    Nader, for some reason or another, seems to get how bad things have got without having to actually live it to its worst extent.

    The reason I'll vote for Nader is the same reason I'll continue to fight against the unfairness and injustice I face--along with many others--on a daily basis. It's simply a matter of not giving up and fighting for what matters--otherwise you're lost along with everyone else.

    Posted by gregsdiary at 02/25/2008 @ 4:59pm

68. And hey, like I said on the other thread, if it's personal...

    answer HMAN or PHILLYMARK or anybody else, or a non-targetted post about whether or not you're going to vote for Nader.

    I noted CRABWALK put LOTS of caveats before he said something innocuous like "I'll be voting FOR something rather than against McCain".

    What IS it about Ralph, that we get so many discussing "his value to the debate"...or "his right to run"...or "how Dems fail us on so many issues"...

    but so few want to say "I'll vote for Nader in 2008"?!!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 5:02pm

69. Well, first, is that "code" for "I'll vote for Nader" when you don't want to come right out and say it?

    Sorry..."I'll vote for Nader"

    I thought I was being generous granting you Colonel. I originally was going to put corporal.

    Usually you exercise better thought processes. You need to work on your Ralph-hatered/Gore fetish cult thingy. c'mon, its the Oscar that looks like a steely dan, not a Nobel. (cheap shot)

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 5:03pm

70. The reason I'll vote for Nader is the same reason I'll continue to fight against the unfairness and injustice I face--along with many others--on a daily basis. It's simply a matter of not giving up and fighting for what matters--otherwise you're lost along with everyone else.----Posted by GREGSDIARY 02/25/2008 @ 4:59pm

    Good for you, GREG. I think wrong, but you've got more guts than some of the Nader "supporters" here to say it clearly!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 5:03pm

71. Posted by CRABWALK 02/25/2008 @ 5:03pm

    Well, good for you too, CRAB. I think wrong, but again, willing to step up and honestly say you're throwing your vote away!

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 5:04pm

72. And now mary is going to lecture me on guts, courage?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 5:07pm

73. Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 3:58pm

    If I were to guess at this point - assuming that the Democratic nomination process comes up with a undisputed nominee and there are no major incidents involving the two major candidates, I think he would likely do worse than 2004, but still better than any other third party candidate.

    However, I think Nader will look different if the Democratic nomination is secured in some unsavory fashion. Or if something unexpected happens - McCain dies on the trail, Obama and Clinton start going to a male strip club together to relax or whatever.

    I think the framing of your question is problematic. I think it is precisely this, "what percentage of people can we safely ignore" mentality that is why Gore lost Florida and ultimately the 2000 election. When you ignore people, you take your chances - and you are left hoping your numbers guy added it up right.

    There was a time that I would have said it would take a spectacular screw-up by the Democratic nominee to lose this race. Now, I think the margin of victory is going to be much less because no matter how the Democratic nomination breaks out, you are going to have disaffected Democratic voters who you won't be able to simply ignore and consign to "just another third party voter" bin. The Democratic nominee is going to have to hustle, and they are not going to be able to safely ignore anyone - moderate Republicans, "pure" (your word) Progressives, or whomever. This task is going to put them in a more difficult place than McCain - who is just going to work on winning conservatives over.

    As to who I'll vote for, no telling at this point. I can see myself voting for Nader, Obama or Clinton (slim chance). No chance at all for McCain or McKinney. Depending on who the other third-party candidates are, I might expand my list of possibles.

    But I will say, which I think is your point, that if Obama or Clinton get the nomination and then decide on a come right, Republican-lite strategy for the general election, they will lose my vote. They have to be significantly different from McCain or else my vote goes to Nader or elsewhere.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 5:14pm

74. Clarification, sorry, doing 3 things at once.

    I will vote for Nader if Hillary is the nominee. Obama, unsure. As has been mentioned, he has lots of pretty words and a good message. Where's the Tofu? Remains to be seen.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 5:14pm

75. throwing your vote away!

    Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 5:04pm |

    didn't you vote for several candidates that lost? Those were wasted votes.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 5:16pm

76. If he is, then all bets are off and he may honestly think he's doing something that will "add" to the political discourse.

    If he isn't, then he realizes that (A) He can't win. (B) He can only draw votes that might go to Obama. (C) That given bad feelings among a TON of his 2000 voters, and the utter failure (0.37%) of his 2004 run, that he will likely (with Obama as Dem nominee) draw that 0.37 or LESS (more likely) and that his "impact" will be microscopic.

    Nader had 93,000 voters in Florida. If 0.7% of them had shown up to vote for Gore, with no Nader in the mix....Gore would have surpassed even the "Katherine Harris" count of Florida in 2000 and won.

    Posted by MARY

    Your words, mary. You can deny it, but you're insinuating Gore lost because of Nader, not because he failed to appeal to those that cast a ballot for Nader. And you can denigrate, demonize those that turned out for Nader all you want, but you fail to explain why those of us that do not share your view should just settle for something less than satisfactory when casting a vote. Nor do people like you want to acknowledge how rigged the game is by the two parties; that any one daring to question the legitimacy of the two party system is kept out of the process by the monoply power of the two parties. You just want to pretend that it's all hunky dory, kosher, right. You're dishonest, but you will squirm like a worm on a hot plate before you admit it. You have no credibility; you are no better, no different than a Karl Rove.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 5:21pm

77. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:39pm

    I don't know how you can claim that Wilson with his strong government control of business and Roosevelt's New Deal wasn't based on business regulation, social welfare, labor unions and civil rights, and how these concerns weren't a feature in the political discourse of the 1950's and 1960's.

    The military has been a central part of the economy and both parties since at least WWII. So, being strong on the military wasn't a feature of the Democratic party.

    Low taxes and small [federal] government? It hasn't been a feature of the Democratic party for at least a hundred years, and while there is a contingent of Jeffersonian Democrats in the 1950s (Strom Thrumand Dixiecrats) and even in the party today, you'd be hard pressed to argue that they were representative or more than a significant minority.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 5:12pm

    The best expression of socialism in this country is the military. The military is a centrally planned economy, with universal health care, better pay for married soldiers doing the same exact job as unmarried ones (according to need), etc.

    All socialism would need to do is come to the U.S. in the guise of the military (or the church), and all you conservatives would get together and beat down doors to sign up.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 5:40pm

78. I don't recall either the Republican or Democratic party being into less government in the 50s or the 60s. The U.S. was in the middle of the Cold War. We also had the Korean War at the beginning of the 50s and the Vietnam War became official in 1965. Republicans always liked to save money, and were the Business Party, but Bush would have given them fits in those days. They definitely wouldn't have gone into debt to the Chinese to support any wars. I think the limited government bit was a part of the Southern Strategy in the Nixon Years. Pat Buchanan would know more about it. I think he was involved.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/25/2008 @ 5:40pm

79. I'm sorry, but this letter of the Nation is a piece of garbage. Ralph Nader may have had accomplishments in the past. However, the past is over and if Ralph Nader doesn't see it then publications like the Nation should. I find it hard to believe you are almost begging this egomaniac to not run. Mr Nader has been an embarassment and created huge problems in his quest of running for President. You should treat him like the piece of dirt he has turned out to be. Very simply, because of him we entered a war we should not have been in and would not have been in. Ralph Nader has the blood of many Americans on his clothes. And the Nation should face this simple realithy.

    Posted by bobbyvee at 02/25/2008 @ 5:43pm

80. repeating a slogan does not amount to a principled argument. and the politics of character defamation are not a substitute for the substantive politics of change on corporate power, militarism, etc.

    Posted by ZERO

    That's all they've got. They have to demonize him; it's their only option. Rather than look in the mirror, examine their hideous face, they attack a non-corporate sponsored candidate that has dedicated his life to serving the vast majority of Americans--the consumers! They don't want to (they can't!) compete with Ralph; they want to simply shut him down.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 6:06pm

81. Why should Nader run?

    1. He's a better candidate than Obama (his positions on the issues are superior to Obama's).

    2. By running Nader can more effectively expose the complacency and power lust which exits on the left wing of the Democratic Party.

    3. His efforts might move a center-right politician like Obama a bit to the left.

    4. By pushing Obama to the left, Nader might also pull leftward political discourse in the United States.

    The mistake made by everyone who would criticize -- if not smear -- Nader can be located in their supposition that Obama -- or Clinton or Gore or whomever -- would become an adequate leader for all Americans. Our situation is much too dire for a merely adequate leader if we are lucky enough to elect such a person this fall. We are likely to get Bubba-lite. "Audacity of Hope"? Hope, alas, was given to us because we are without hope, to paraphrase Walter Benjamin.

    Posted by sdz at 02/25/2008 @ 6:06pm

82. A learned person would heed the advice of this editorial. An egoist will continue to ignore the plea to step aside.

    Posted by jlenahan at 02/25/2008 @ 6:27pm

83. Run Ralph Run! At what point will American's stop listening to the drivel that is being dished out by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are spinning the propaganda. If only to challenge both parties to begin speaking to the real issues, I am so very thankful Ralph has entered the race.

    Posted by tdavis at 02/25/2008 @ 6:43pm

84. Typical garbage from the Nation. If you guys wonder why I refuse to renew my subscription. This is it. Actually not just this. I also have 5 other other subscriptions that actually keep me informed without telling me who I can vote for. KVH maybe you ought to get used to the idea that the political constituency extends beyond the 'democratic' party, and that taking away my candidate is not going to make it more likely that I will vote for yours. A candidate is either worthy of my vote or not worthy of my vote. If none of them are worthy I simply don't vote.

    Posted by dogbreath at 02/25/2008 @ 6:44pm

85. Very simply, because of him we entered a war we should not have been in and would not have been in. Ralph Nader has the blood of many Americans on his clothes. And the Nation should face this simple realithy.

    Posted by BOBBYVEE 02/25/2008 @ 5:43pm

    Pure and utter BS.

    the blame for war rests with Bush and every republican and democrat that gave him the power and continues to fund the boondoggle. Especially Hillary "I'm a Leader" Clinton.

    gore lost all by his-self.

    The logic that says "Someone that has been against the war from the get go is the reason for the war" escapes me totally. This is neo-con logic. Black is white.

    -- Posted by JLENAHAN 02/25/2008 @ 6:27pm

    couldn't this comment also apply to Obama or Clinton?

    you don't care to hear about progressive ideals during the next election?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 6:48pm

86. We were Obama supporters until Sunday. Obama's response was an attack that was personal, malevolent (Nader's a hardhead who doesn't listen to anyone) and unwarranted. Obama took the low road in that response. Nader's legacy of sincerity and genuineness in standing-up for the little guy, the ordinary bloke, is well-established and beyond reproach. In terms of the tenacity with which he holds his well-founded beliefs, this is a virtue to be revered and appreciated, not repudiated. Pandering chameleon politicians who wet their fingers and follow which way the wind is blowing, stand for nothing and barter away the people's interests to advance their own interests. This is part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution. We need someone who stands firm, doesn't give-up and doesn't concede hard-fought territory, as Democrats have repeatedly done. Obama's low-road response discloses that the "Unity" he pays lip-service to is NOT something he intends to actualize in his conduct. Obama's 'Unity' message turns out to be just more gas-bag, blow-hard drivel dispensed to get votes. HE LOST OUR VOTES.

    Posted by dogit at 02/25/2008 @ 7:35pm

87. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 5:12pm

    When did Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy....ever propose privatizing Social Security?!?!?!?!

    Sorry, LVLIB...walked into another one. Defending the old "50s and 60s Democratic Party" you just contradicted your previous posts that the New Deal and every thing done domestically since then was "socialism".

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 8:07pm

88. Oh, please shut up about what Ralph Nader does or does not do. The Democratic Party kept him off the ballot in my native state of California in 2004 but I wrote in his name anyway. Not that anyone ever bothered to count it. John Kerry still carried this "important" state and yet lost the general election to a dyslexic dwarf chimpanzee like Deputy Dubya Bush. So, neither Ralph Nader nor this disgusted Vietnam Veteran who voted for him had any effect whatsoever on the debacle that both Republican and Democratic parties foisted onto America and the world as a result of their rigged and corrupt "competition."

    America doesn't need another two-party "election." America needs a Constitutional Convention to re-design a democracy that actually functions in a post-eighteenth-century world. Israeli/Zionist-occupied corporate America doesn't actually function for Americans anymore, in case you hadn't noticed.

    So, just shut up about Ralph Nader or any other American who wants to run for office. Do your own work; support your own candidate; but stop trying to demonize and scapegoat those of us who refuse to fall for the bullshit you keep shilling about why we shouldn't want something better. Ralph Nader wouldn't bother you in the least if you didn't in truth subscribe to most of what he espouses but don't have the integrity or strength to demand that your precious Democratic Party actually stand for election -- and not voter suppression -- promising to implement Nader's perfectly reasonable positions.

    Posted by mikemurry at 02/25/2008 @ 8:09pm

89. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/25/2008 @ 5:14pm

    Interesting answer, SRJ.

    Wonder why SOME Nader supporters can't say something that clear?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 8:12pm

90. Israeli/Zionist-occupied corporate America doesn't actually function for Americans anymore, in case you hadn't noticed.----Posted by MIKEMURRY 02/25/2008 @ 8:09pm

    Another "Zionist" poster for Nader....hmmm?...wonder how many more we'll find???

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 8:13pm

91. It really does get tiresome, Dems blaming ole Ralph.

    They run tree stumps like Gore and Kerry - and wonder why they lose? Against Dubya, no less ??

    Kick the Hill to te curb where she can be picked up with the rest of the trash.

    Obama is the better of the two. Go with him. And stop all the WHINING.

    Posted by chuckamok at 02/25/2008 @ 8:57pm

92. Katrina's appeal and those like it make absolutely no sense to me. Nader may be the one who puts his name on the ballot, but it's the voters who put the votes on the board. Shouldn't this appeal be directed at them? If you feel a vote for Nader is a bad idea, then direct your appeal at the voter. This appeal directed at Nader is pathetic and undemocratic. It's this kind of "thinking" that led to me abandon my subscription to the Nation. It's just plain stupid and lazy.

    Posted by geezjan at 02/25/2008 @ 9:13pm

93. Re: Ralf Don't Run

    Wow, the Nation editors gone wild? Hey, Ralf is anti-war, pro-consumer, pro-environment, non-partisan, and, above all, the most ethical person in the US. There's no reason why Ralf shouldn't run. Go Ralf go.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 02/25/2008 @ 9:24pm

94. The Nation should be ashamed of themselves for discouraging the most progressive candidate in the world from running for President. Who cares about electability when the only candidates deemed so are corporate fascists in sheep's clothing? I am sick of the Nation selling out the progressive cause for the sake of Democratic party unity. This magazine used to stand for something, but lately all I see are a pack of Obama cheerleaders who have lost the vision for a truly reformed America. You fell off, Nation. You fell off.

    Posted by badtimmay at 02/25/2008 @ 9:39pm

95. It's this kind of "thinking" that led to me abandon my subscription to the Nation.----Posted by GEEZJAN 02/25/2008 @ 9:13pm

    Interesting. What IS this, the 3rd or 4th poster who took the time to blog on "The Nation" website....who's told us that (in the past, before this Nader issue even arose) that they "cancelled their subscription"?!??!?

    Anybody find it strange that somebody who deliberately cut themselves off from reading "TN"....would come back, just to support Nader and say "This is the reason I cancelled my subscription years ago"!??!???!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 9:56pm

96. This debate is largely a waste of time. Nader is not going to push Obama far enough to the left to convince Nader supporters to vote for him. For one thing, I doubt many would think his shift was authentic. Even more important, and something Nader supporters seem to deliberately ignore (or do not care about), is that Obama would get killed in the general election with such a drastic shift. While I agree with much of what Nader stands for, his views are simply not acceptable to a majority of people in the country -- at least in any collective way that would give him an electoral victory. If Nader could even hope to garner 10%, 20% or 25% of the vote, I'd say sure, run. But he cannot.

    Nader supporters want the world to change with one election at the top, but it simply does not work that way. I'm for change towards the left, but I am not willing to throw our country down a toilet of conservative victory after victory until the nation is so broken that some sort of revolution sweeps the nation.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/25/2008 @ 10:04pm

97. Jesus,

    Nader comes out and says he is running for Pres. and the wingnuts come out of the woodworks. Message for the Naderites: HE HAS NO CHANCE AT GETTING ANYWHERE NEAR 5% OF THE VOTE, and if he gets between 1% and 3% in a couple of swing states...Say hello to President-Elect McCain. But you wingnuts are willing to put up with "100 years in Iraq" as long as "the most ethical person in the US" gets to talk about "Progressive" ideals and make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside for voting your "conscience" instead of voting for someone who might actually win (and consequently do more ACTUAL work for the progressive cause than Ralph Naders done in the last 15 years).

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/25/2008 @ 10:05pm

98. This Election is far too important for a distraction such as Nader. It made sense for him to run in 2000. Nafta, depressed wages, rising corporatism, corporate pollution practically legalized and all under a supposed "Liberal" administration. But why run in '08, if not for ego?

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/25/2008 @ 10:06pm

99. If Nader really wanted to change our country, he would run for Congress in the most liberal district in Oregon (I would be willing to bet he would win handily). The amount of good he could do in public office would far exceed anything he could do by appearing at a debate. Ah, but Congressman Nader just doesn't have the same ring as 3rd Party Presidential Candidate Nader.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/25/2008 @ 10:16pm

100. It seems to me, Bizarrorio, that your post and those like it are as pointless and ego-driven as you say Nader's run is. Because it's clear you're not actually trying to convince Nader or his supporters, since one never persuades an audience by insulting them. So why make these posts, if not for ego?

     Posted by geezjan at 02/25/2008 @ 10:18pm

101. I LOVE green jello...with the little peaches cut up in it. Just like Grandma's!

     Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 2:10pm

     mmmmmmm, pig skin.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 10:21pm

102. "Hey everyone! I'm Mask! I am here with 400 posts per thread, all babbling just to hear my own voice and see my name in print! "----Posted by ZERO 02/25/2008 @ 12:07pm

     LOL!....ZERO, count my posts and yours on this thread (include this one if you like)!

     Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 12:36pm

     ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

     and here's the score coming into the third quarter:

     ZERO 9

     MASK 23

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 10:26pm

103. Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/25/2008 @ 10:16pm

     exactly.

     many of the things mr. nader says are true.

     but how would he deal with a congress of two parties that hate him.

     and how would he deal with a supreme court that would ignore him.

     mr. nader, if you want to do something start at the bottom, not the top.

     it's as if i said, "i'm going to be the starting quarterback of the new england patriots next year".

     i've never played american football.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 10:30pm

104. Posted by GEEZJAN 02/25/2008 @ 10:18pm | ignore this person

     Sometimes a punch in the face is the only way to get the delusional (or the ideological purists) to snap out of their fantasies. Or my rantings could just be me venting about the one thing that I fear could hand the WH to repubs...2000 all over again.

     Posted by BizarroRio at 02/25/2008 @ 10:38pm

105. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/25/2008 @ 10:30pm | ignore this person

     we would never know how he would deal with a hostile congress or contemptuous SCOTUS...because he will never try to actually hold office, only run for one that is beyond his reach.

     Posted by BizarroRio at 02/25/2008 @ 10:41pm

106. Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/25/2008 @ 10:38pm

     Your "punch in the face" theory is a fantasy. Must be that second thing...

     To Katrina et al.: Nader's running. It's called an election in a democracy. Deal with it. If it seems stupid/ego/whatever to you, then he must not share your goals. Which, if I recall, is what elections are supposed to be about: competing goals.

     The day I see the Democrats fighting for something like instant run-off voting, not to mention truly free and meaningful democracy, then maybe they'll get my sympathy. I'm not holding my breath. Look what they did to Kucinich, supposedly one of their own.

     Posted by geezjan at 02/25/2008 @ 10:52pm

107. Love your magazine, but beg to differ. Nader's entry can only help Obama, making him the centrist in a three-way race next fall (presuming he dispatches the Clintons). Nader will talk about how Obama's too corporate while McCain complains he's too socialistic. So, what's a voter to do, other than vote for a man who bridges the divide? Can you say "landslide"? Yes we can!

     Posted by unclechet at 02/25/2008 @ 10:58pm

108. Love your magazine, but beg to differ. Nader's entry can only help Obama, making him the centrist in a three-way race next fall (presuming he dispatches the Clintons). Nader will talk about how Obama's too corporate while McCain complains he's too socialistic. So, what's a voter to do, other than vote for a man who bridges the divide? Can you say "landslide"? Yes we can!

     Posted by unclechet at 02/25/2008 @ 10:58pm

109. Ralph should run, and I hope it makes the Dems nervous. I hope they are nervous enough to veer further away from the corruption that plagues them almost as much as the Repubs.

     I'm sick of Nader fear. I'm sick of him getting blamed for the stolen elections.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/25/2008 @ 11:19pm

110. Posted by GEEZJAN 02/25/2008 @ 10:52pm | ignore this person

     You wingnuts drive me crazy with the "that's what elections are for, get over it" argument. NOONE is saying Nader should not be allowed to run, just that he should decide not to run. For everybody's sake. Asking someone to be responsible and stay home is not un-democratic.

     I thought the goal for '08 was a liberal in the WH?

     Or would you prefer a "true progressive" to get 5% (at best-) of the vote if it meant that Pres. McCain continued the war in iraq and possibly starts a war with iran?

     Posted by BizarroRio at 02/25/2008 @ 11:20pm

111. I'm sick of Nader fear. I'm sick of him getting blamed for the stolen elections.

     Posted by SPUDBOY 02/25/2008 @ 11:19pm | ignore this person

     If he would have stayed home, Bush never would have been elected. Call that blame if you want, I call it mathematics.

     Posted by BizarroRio at 02/25/2008 @ 11:22pm

112. Maybe it's for ego, maybe it's for fun

     Maybe it's a long shot... joke on everyone

     Surely he's a thinker, he's got his issues straight

     He throws a curving sinker, across the corporate plate

     Which team warms him up? Bullpen activity

     Who fills his empty cup? Who just can't wait to see?

     Consumer advocation, is honest, heartfelt work

     But divisive admiration, is just a spinner's perk

     For Nader riles extremists, to haughty one night stands

     Pretending that their dream is, a realist's demands

     But is he at the table, or just in people's minds

     When populism's fable, politely just declines

     Posted by ttr at 02/25/2008 @ 11:27pm

113. It's not for my sake he should not run. Nor is it "responsible" for him not to run. It's for your comfort level alone.

     But he can speak for himself:

     Nader will run for president http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=e08c8d70-d888-4248- 974d-e9230d4262f6

     Nader on the opposing candidates http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=a1e5ab22-f549-45f6- b6eb-821a4419a085

     Nader on the 2000 election http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=b45636bc-7ea4-4139- 9a77-8eed875d3158

     Posted by spudboy at 02/25/2008 @ 11:58pm

114. "Look around: no one, including former strong supporters, called on you to run this year. Doesn't that deafening silence say something?"

     Deafening silence? Go to DraftNader.org and scoll down the front page to see an enormous list of people who signed an online petition to draft Nader for the presidency. No is has called on Nader to run this year? Well, what do you call that?

     Posted by ahardy55 at 02/26/2008 @ 12:47am

115. I have no problem with Nader running. Doubt he expects to win or even to get a large percentage of votes cast. He is likely out to present an honestly progressive program under conditions where he might cost the Democratic Party the election if it fails to answer the issues he would bring up. Particularly when there is so much mention of change. Finally it is up to candidates to prove themselves worthy of election. There is something unseemly too in helping one candidate and political party by urging Nader not to run and denying the electorate a choice. Seems to me this is only to the benefit of the duopoly you referred to.

     In any case should Obama or Clinton take progressives for granted as the Democratic Party has done so often before would vote for Nader without hesitation.

     Charlie M

     Posted by cmsandia at 02/26/2008 @ 12:50am

116. Posted by AHARDY55 02/26/2008 @ 12:47am

     No is has called on Nader to run this year? Well, what do you call that?

     Well, AHARDY55... ;^)... I'd call that "about the number of angels that could be balanced on the head of a pin'.

     Posted by ttr at 02/26/2008 @ 03:06am

117. All I can say is, if the Democrats fear a Nader candidacy, then they've got bigger problems than can be solved by anything The Nation publishes.

     Yes, Nader is a great leader with a great understanding of the issues (and probably a better politician than anyone else on the national scene right now). But is he a threat to mainstream politics? Unfortunately, no.

     Posted by iqwirty at 02/26/2008 @ 06:09am

118. But why run in '08, if not for ego?

     Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/25/2008 @ 10:06pm

     Nafta, depressed wages, rising corporatism, corporate pollution practically legalized and all under a supposed "Liberal" administration.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 07:27am

119. If he would have stayed home, Bush never would have been elected. Call that blame if you want, I call it mathematics.

     Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/25/2008 @ 11:22pm

     It is truly amazing how this urban myth gets spread around. Did you guys also know that Saddam Hussein had 20,000 litres of anthrax and ties to AQ? It's simple math, if it was there in 1991, it must still be there

     Fucking sheep. Ya'll are even willing to pay to get fleeced, lining up with your legs spread just isn't enough.

     Listen to yourselves.

     "We want change ! We want change We want CHANGE!!

     (but no that much change, it scares us!)

     Change:[remove (something dirty or faulty) and replace it with another of the same kind]

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 07:34am

120. Once again, look at Michigan and Florida, then tell me how much the democratic party "values" our votes.

     Have the dems stood up to Chimpy McFlightsuit? Has Obama forced Chimpy to obey the law? Hillary?

     ---

     Nader donor list 2004

     Kafoury & McDougal $31,020

     Lynx Investment Advisory $25,350

     Kayline Enterprises $12,000

     GH Palmer Assoc $12,000

     Rochester Gauges $10,000

     Emond, Vines et al $9,000

     Nader for President 2004 $8,500

     Farouk Systems $8,300

     Barnes & Noble $8,250

     Forbes Inc $8,000

     Muze Inc $7,767

     University of South Carolina $6,500

     Perishable Distributors of Iowa $6,000

     University of Vermont $6,000

     West Contra Costa School District $6,000

     Norway Hill Assoc $6,000

     Lintilhac Foundation $6,000

     Stevens Law Group $5,200

     IBM Corp $4,800

     University of California $4,781

     Clinton top donors

     DLA Piper $471,750 Goldman Sachs $413,361 Morgan Stanley $362,700 Citigroup Inc $350,895 Lehman Brothers $241,870 JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880 EMILY's List $213,266 National Amusements Inc $210,010 Kirkland & Ellis $179,676 Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800 Skadden, Arps et al $167,796 Merrill Lynch $165,042 Cablevision Systems $145,313 Time Warner $144,977 Microsoft Corp $143,459 Bear Stearns $141,835 Latham & Watkins $138,598 Patton Boggs $137,200 Ernst & Young $126,865 PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

     Obama top donors

     Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250

     So, if you have a problem with your credit card company, who do you think is going to help YOU? Mortgage company putting the squeeze on you? Do you think hillary is going to go to bat against her top donors to help you? Obama?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 07:47am

121. Don't want a nookyular waste dump in your back yard? Is Obama going to tell Exelon, "Hey, thanks for the 220k, but my inner self says I have to go with the people on this one".

     Smoke em if ya got em. Inhale deeply the opiate of the democratic party elites. Trust me, really, they are here to help. ffffffftt. mmmm,

     I guess the neo-cons might be right. Progressives are all about surrender.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 07:51am

122. Do any of you "progressives" even know what Patton Boggs is and does? Who their clients are?

     Staff Reporter of the Sun December 21, 2004

     A D V E R T I S E M E N T

     A D V E R T I S E M E N T

     A surreptitious effort by Saudi Arabia to launch an advertising campaign in America led to a heated row at a prestigious Washington law firm and the departure of at least one of the firm's partners, according to people familiar with the conflict.

     The internal fight at Patton Boggs was triggered by the firm's investment in a public relations company, Qorvis Communications, which began working for Saudi Arabia soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As the Saudis faced charges that they tolerated Islamic extremists and bankrolled terrorists, Patton Boggs itself also signed up the Saudi Arabian government as a client.

     Want change?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 07:56am

123. Wow, the Nation editors gone wild? HELENDAO

     ugh! KVH and John Nichols can keep their shirts on, thanks.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 07:58am

124. Someone mentioned earlier on the thread, that Nader's breathtaking ego would get him face time with the MSM hired guns. When I switched on the box last night, there he was with that shrill whining, spoiled brat, Tucker Carlson, and Nader was pounding the issues that matter--starting with the taboo subject, Palestine. When the punk, Carlson, wanted to cut him off, Nader gestured to the page of talking points regarding the other subjects he wanted to hit on--impeachment, corporate dominance of politics, etc, when Carlson whined they were out of time. (Nader got a final dig in mentioning to quasi-libertarian Tucker that more candidates meant "more competition"). If Nader's crippling ego gets him exposure to bring up the topics that are otherwise deliberately ignored, than he needs to have that ego stoked because there is no one better at pulling up facts off the top of his head.....And Ms Katrina? Perhaps Nader's strategy IS working on the outside, a fact that you can't recognize in your blindness to his apparent inappropriateness for just who you define as qualified.

     Posted by Lil at 02/26/2008 @ 08:33am

125. Nader is deluded if he thinks [again] that his running is the best thing for the country. And so are his supporters. I might agree with every one of his policy positions, but his candidacy and his approach to change is simply not going to get anywhere. he will better serve the country and his own legacy if he supports the Democratic party from within. That's how he can be a powerful force. Another run for the presidency will be just a bad joke.

     Posted by JerichoValley at 02/26/2008 @ 08:59am

126. And Ms Katrina? Perhaps Nader's strategy IS working on the outside, a fact that you can't recognize in your blindness to his apparent inappropriateness for just who you define as qualified.

     Posted by LIL 02/26/2008 @ 08:33am

     What "strength" did he show in 2004?

     Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 09:06am

127. The only time Nader got enough support to effect the election was in 2000; I don't remember any official editorial telling him not to run back then - though you did run's Alterman's anti-Nader stuff if I remember correctly. Now that he is functionally irrelevent, you start piling on with the don't run Ralph stuff.

     Nader got almost 3 percent in 2000. Abandoned by most his former supporters in 2004, he managed to pull in .3 percent of the vote. not even close to the changing the result in any state. Do you really think he stands a chance of pulling over 1 percent this time around? Nader managed to pull in around a thousand votes in the California Green primary - and he won. He won't matter in 08. I'm utterly amazed by the amount of attention he still gets, compared to other third-party candidates. I mean why don't you lecture the Socialist Party or Peace and Freedom about not running too?

     Posted by alexmh17 at 02/26/2008 @ 09:33am

128. I mean why don't you lecture the Socialist Party or Peace and Freedom about not running too?

     Posted by ALEXMH17 02/26/2008 @ 09:33am

     Because they don't push the truth the way ralph does.

     If people would actually listen to what he says, they would find that they agree with most of it.

     I am reminded of the website tha ask questions and then give you the candidate that fits your profile. An awful lot of people ended up with Kucinich and Ron Paul, but they buy into the corporate driven drivel about "electability" and it turns into self fulfilling prophecy.

     "You must be the change you want to see "b>- Ghandi (non-violence NEVER works, right MASK?)

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 10:06am

129. Nader is deluded if he thinks [again] that his running is the best thing for the country. And so are his supporters. I might agree with every one of his policy positions, but his candidacy and his approach to change is simply not going to get anywhere. he will better serve the country and his own legacy if he supports the Democratic party from within. That's how he can be a powerful force. Another run for the presidency will be just a bad joke.

     Posted by JERICHOVALLEY 02/26/2008 @ 08:59am

     ----------------------------------------

     How's Dennis Kucinich doing these days?

     Posted by sdz at 02/26/2008 @ 10:54am

130. Posted by CRABWALK 02/26/2008 @ 10:06am

     CRAB....tell me again, exactly what Ralph Nader polling at 1% or less and likely getting 1% of the vote (probably less)...

     will do?

     "influence Obama to move Left"?....why? Should Obama "move libertarian" because Ron Paul raised $25 Million and would get TWO percent if he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket?

     "get his issues voiced"?....where? He won't be in the debates and the MSM is just having him on now, because they like a freak show.

     So....what?

     Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 11:08am

131. obama is going nowhere left. right if anything.

     he's got to convince mom and pop that he can alleviate all of their bushian instilled fears.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 11:16am

132. "It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people" - Gore Vidal

     Isn't there enough proof of this stallmate already ?

     Please tell me what's false in the statements of this clip ?

     HIGHEST BIDDER http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmhL8bjL9vc

     Has the left become as spineless as the democrats ?

     What's wrong with democracy when one is asked to shut up ?

     Ask Orwell …

     "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

     or else…

     "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind" - George Orwell

     as in…

     GOP KILLING FLOOR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4QKfDdJ3ns

     Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

     Posted by white noise at 02/26/2008 @ 11:59am

133. Did Nader cost Gore the election in 2000? Of course he did. But that's cool - he had a right to run, as he points out every chance he gets.

     He'll be a non-factor this time, like '04. I'm trying not to get mad at the guy due to all his substantial contributions over the years ... but I must say his ego is showing a bit.

     In a few months, when the GOP roles out it's thinly-veiled racist rhetoric against Barack Obama, this whole conversation will be a distant memory .. it will be very nasty. The big question will be can Obama weather the storm and pull off a victory in Nov, or will he be destroyed (I hope not literally, another fear of mine) by the Republican Hate Machine .. EV

     Posted by EnviroVarmint at 02/26/2008 @ 12:12pm

134. Dear hysterical Democrats,

     Why are you so arrogant as to assume that all Americans left of center are on your side?

     Why do you think that just because you have a candidate or two who makes nice speeches about change and is not a War Pig Republican that all of a sudden everyone on the left owes your candidate allegiance?

     Why do you continue to live under this collective fantasy that people who voted for Nader would have voted for your little corporate whore puppet candidates even if you held guns to our heads?

     You scream and moan about Nader and his supporters as if we actually have something in common with you.

     News Flash: We don't. You are collaborationist supporters of an Imperial War Party that is part and parcel of the corporate oligarchy that is ruining this country and indeed, the entire planet. And since you are a bunch of do-nothings during non-elections years you can...

     Take your whining and piss off. You have no right to lecture us on how to vote and who gets to run for president.

     Most of you were sitting on the couch doing NOTHING while Bill Clinton and the big money Dems implemented a Republican economic and foreign policy agenda in the 1990's.

     If you ask me your vitriolic hatred for Mr. Nader and his supporters has more to do over all your guilt at being election year activists (and that in name and internet blather only) and doing nothing while the Dems fiddled during the sack of America and the planet by Corporate War-Mongering Huns.

     Sorry, but for those of us who were trying to make change (and not just with nice speeches, either) during the Corporate reign of terror of the 90's, we get to vote for who we want to. We don't need a bunch of spineless liberals (who stood by and let the Dems promote NAFTA, the WTO, the Salvage Rider, the decade long intermittent bombing of Iraq, the savage exploitation of Appalachia and poor people everywhere, and countess other crimes against humanity and the planet) tell us who to vote for or make us feel guilty for not falling in line with the great liberal hallucination of change through Corporate controlled Politics.

     Stop acting like we are some wayward leftists who need to shepherded or guilt tripped back into the fold. Your folds sucks and gets nothing done and I won't play along no matter how much you whine, complain, cajole or even make threats.

     The radicals owe you nothing. We will pay you nothing (in votes or support or whatever) and we will vote our consciences when and where we please.

     All this whining and hand-ringing is pathetic anyway. If you really support the Dems, get out from in front of your computer and go register people to vote and take whatever measures you feel are necessary to prevent the massive voter fraud that happened in 2000 and 2004 from happening again. That fraud accounted for more of a vote count difference between Corporate Whore Number One and his "opposition" than all the far left votes put together.

     Have a nice day and please stop whining - it is unbecoming of Citizens of free will and it makes all you look like a bunch of complaining whining spineless do nothing conservative talk radio listeners.

     In addition, I am predicting the Nader or another third party candidate like Cynthia McKinney, will do BETTER than Nader in 2000!

     I do not know who I am voting for yet, but it sure as hell is unlikely to be the Democrapic shill, no matter who he or she is...

     Posted by pilule at 02/26/2008 @ 12:26pm

135. Did Nader cost Gore the election in 2000? Of course he did.

     Sorry to burst your bubble or maybe you are to busy being proud of what you ignore to care but Bush stole both the 2000 & 2004 elections fair & square ;)

     Check this out...

     LYNCHING BY LAPTOP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCR6IdTQTeE

     Meanwhile...

     "Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic. Henry Adams figured all that out back in the 1890s. 'We have a single system,' he wrote, and 'in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses." : Gore Vidal - The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

     "Private interests have looted the treasury, and the administration has sanctioned unrestrained fraud and corruption. We have watched Congress and the press become weak and willing handmaidens to those who would rip apart the fabric and laws of our democratic society. We hunger for the restoration of hope, common sense and purpose." - Jann S. Wenner 10/26/07 RS40

     Posted by white noise at 02/26/2008 @ 12:30pm

136. Excellent Editorial, Ms. Vanden Heuvel. Nader should get out of the race, lest he pull enough votes from the Democratic candidate to change the results, as Nader's candidacy did in 2000. Think about how this world would be a different place had Al Gore been elected in 2000, rather than Bush!

     Posted by farbie at 02/26/2008 @ 12:32pm

137. Whatever Nader advocated in the past is lost with his egotistical desire to run again. He's as stubborn in his way as the "decider". That he won't let himself see his running could give McCain the White House is baffling.

     Posted by dlefcourt at 02/26/2008 @ 12:37pm

138. Why doesn't Ralph run for Congress? Why Presdient?

     Posted by Hman23 at 02/26/2008 @ 12:39pm

139. Farbie, Ralph Nader "pulled enough votes from the Democratic candidate to change the results" – wrong! I am so sick of this myth that has been used to blame Nader for the failures of the Democratic Party. Here are a few facts: According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were first time voters, formerly Perot voters. Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic Party. Remember that the Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country." Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats.

     Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election for many reasons: First, remember that Al Gore actually won the election in 2000. George W. Bush, the Supreme court stop of the recount , Gore who decided not to contest the election, Katherine Harris-style purging of ninety thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles, more than 250,000 Democrats in Florida, and the deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election. And you know what else cost Al Gore the election? The Democratic Party itself that, while defending corporate interests, voted for or failed to stop: The Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president, The Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, The Medicare fiasco, etc.

     The excellent documentary, "Ralph Nader, an unreasonable man", shows that during the campaign, Nader offered to meet with Gore and was about to leave the election in exchange for some compromise. Gore refused and so committed a fatal flaw. It's the responsibility of any candidate to form a coalition but Gore chose not to work with Nader. This was the Gore effect, not the Nader effect.

     If one accepts the flawed logic that suggests Ralph 'cost' Gore two states (New Hampshire and Florida), then it would also follow that Buchanan 'cost' Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico) in 2000. CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.

     No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned. Although, I voted for Gore I regret I didn't vote for Nader. I won't do that mistake again. To say someone has a negative effect is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.

     For the last four years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens, oblivious to the facts, looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates. It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins. That would be like asking Toyota to stop manufacturing cars so GM, Chrysler, and Ford increase their market share. Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract. At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics? How much BS can we take?

     Posted by pilule at 02/26/2008 @ 12:43pm

140. Ralph is an idiot. He proved it once by running and being responsible for the election of the worst president in the nation's history. If he didn't learn the first time, what would make anyone think he would not do it again. I was hoping someone would keep him distracted long enough to get this election thru. Now all we can hope is that his "flock" did learn a bit more than he did. Inspiration without pragmatism can be destructive. In this case it cannot get much worse.

     Posted by nixl at 02/26/2008 @ 1:23pm

141. Katrina, I agree with you on some things, but not this. Telling Ralph Nader, or anyone else for that matter, not to run is undemocratic. I suspect even Al Gore would admit that Nader did not cost him the election in 2000. There was rampant voter disenfranchisement, something the Republicans have now perfected in advance of the 2008 election; and Gore's tepid campaign didn't give enough progressives enough reason to come out in force.

     So, I say run, Ralph, run. It's quite unlikely that I will vote for you. But, it will force the two major party candidates to address some very critical issues which would otherwise not be.

     Posted by paranoid36 at 02/26/2008 @ 1:28pm

142. What your position comes down to is that we have to vote for whatever the Democrats put up because the Republicans are so bad. But Vote Nader has put up 13 issues on which he has a clear difference with the Republican and Democratic candidates. A few may be a bit silly, like impeachment since Bush and Cheney will not be eligible for impeachment once a new President is inaugurated, but a number of them are serious issues, like military spending on which the positions of McCain, Obama and Clinton are virtually identical.

     Nader may not be in a good position to be the standard bearer for an alternative to the Demopublican view, and I am not particularly arguing for him personally, but there needs to be at least one real alternative to the establishment candidates and the gist of your argument seems to be opposing any alternative.

     In other words, The Nation is effectively for militarism, imperialism, corporatism, etc. So sick.

     Posted by Bill Samuel at 02/26/2008 @ 1:30pm

143. Think about how this world would be a different place had Al Gore been elected in 2000, rather than Bush!

     Posted by FARBIE 02/26/2008 @ 12:32pm

     Think about why Gore ran such a poor campaign, and what YOU could have done to help him win against a draft dodging cocaine snorting do-nothing American Taliban stooge with almost zero experience in guvt.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/26/2008 @ 1:36pm

144. Ralph Nader is not now, nor never was a man of principle. As in the two previous general elections, he is showing his true colors. It may be, that you need to take off the kid gloves.

     JFL

     Posted by JFL at 02/26/2008 @ 1:49pm

145. There's an excellent rebuttal by a rather brilliant young woman on YouTube to this, which is blogged HERE. Or copy/paste this link: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/in-defense-of-ralph-nader /.

     From the NY Crimes (yes I'm boycotting them since they hired Billy the Baghdad Bomber AKA Kristol-nacht, but have a spy who works the night-shift) I offer a statistical fact-check regarding the actual effect on the electorate of Nader's last run in 2004:

     Mr. Nader...received 0.3 percent of the nationwide vote in 2004, down from 2.7 percent in 2000 -- a drop caused by being on the ballot in only 34 states, he said.

     So, anti-Naderites think 0.3% threw the vote for Botch against Kerry? I'd be more inclined to entertain some skull & bones conspiracy.

     If the vote really was so close that it could be stolen a SECOND TIME (all because of Nader's .3% fer sure…), it's likely because the people don't vote, making the pool small enough that some sect of deranged Neocon red-state cultists could slip some machines a mickey, etc. & throw the entire world into an endless, greed-based illegal war, having ‘just enough' to own the system once again.

     If the majority really do concur with Bush's policies (as they did with Raygun) then progressives have vastly more work to do than poking at Ralph Nader.

     Nader's position is that third parties force the campaigns of front-runners to be honest about dissenting views to the establishment position. Nader is right, the debate must add the legitimate progressive voice. Popular opinion, if it exists, will decide, as it should, and as we see above, there is negligible statistical difference either way.

     To me the legitimate question about Nader's point is not that he shouldn't use the platform of a campaign to add his views to the debate, rather it's how it can be that the front-runners are corrupt enough to not espouse the obvious causes of peace, justice, accountability and democracy.

     Furthermore if these ‘throwaway' candidacies of dissenting third parties are needed in order to keep the candidates honest, how could you ever trust the main-stream nominee to uphold a campaign position forced on them by opposition talking points?

     The problem is the corruption of the Democrats, as well as marketing dollars determining public fashions-- it's a necessarily corrupting mechanism resulting in a very unsaticsfactory pool of options once again.

     Indeed we DID vote Dem during the mid-terms, and at just the last possible time to effect serious course correction. What did we get? Impeachment got taken off the table, and not a single thing was done to stop anything. The Dems instead showed themselves to be wholly complicit with the neocon cult.

     It would appear time to finally accept that the Dems are likely not an opposition party to anything anymore, and certainly not a valid arbiter of peace, justice, democracy and the common good. They can never refute their complicity in this war, and they will clearly never change course, for doing so would be an admission of their brain-dead compliance with the Neocons. As Scott Ritter so aptly points out, you're likely going to have to wait until this entire generation of congress just dies out, as they'll obviously admit to nothing.

     Nader has my deepest respect. But for me, the debate is clearly thrown already to the right, since the Dems failed to adopt the ideas of the great Dennis Kucinich. They had their real democratic flag of conscientious dissent to rally ‘round, and blew it big time.

     Even the nation just published some snark about Dennis, when he's been the only actual politician to actually draft and promote actual bills in congress to actually effect change from within the system. And now the best the nation can do is ‘give him his due' belatedly, when in fact he was likely the visionary with the fearlessness to effect exactly the changes we need, and the experience in congress to know what he's doing.

     In the end I suspect it will have been Pelosi and Conyers who, in corruptly derailing impeachment, gave the criminals enough validity to gain their 51% steal-able ‘majority', and McBomb will get his army and his ammo after all.

     The Democrats in their uniquely spineless way managed to de-claw themselves with regard to policy direction when they blew the opportunity to demand accountability and the rule of constitutional law in the executive branch.

     Had the Democrats done their duty by comporting with the public and constitutional demand for impeachment, they would have re-armed the defunct Democrats, and offered the electorate a pillar of hope that their government indeed is representational and ethical, and that our vote really does make a difference. That would have then engendered a sense of public empowerment, and a massive outpouring of voter participation to effect just the landslide the Dems would have needed, which ain't happening.

     But without impeachment, I'm afraid presidential politics has become pointless, and the typical failure by the Dems in trying to be too diplomatic, non-divisive and nice, has backfired big time once again.

     Democrats live in cities on the edges of the coasts, and their failure to comprehend the right wing, red-state, bible-belted, fundamentalist, evangelical hate-mongering mood of the redneck minions infesting the entire heartland means their message of conciliatory cooperation is simply mocked, and amounts to nothing less than co-conspiracy in war-crimes.

     For an explanation of why and how the heartland became diseased, remember ‘What's the Matter with Kansas' (Animated map of the red-state infestation by county and election available HERE Or copy/paste this link: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=16881471 8&blogID=359314683 .

     Posted by Giordano Rios at 02/26/2008 @ 1:49pm

146. Recently seen bumper sticker: STILL GLAD YOU VOTED FOR NADER??

     Posted by Desert Son at 02/26/2008 @ 1:54pm

147. At last, a candidate who I can vote for instead of against. Until our government under The Constitution is wrested from the clenched fists of the fascist corporate dictatorship, the economic and military disaster will continue. Ralph Nader is, now, the only candidate who actually can claim the title of a true Patriotic American since Kucinich was deep-sixed by the so-called "Progressive" media and the Quislings claiming "progressive" ideals while supporting more of the same draconian policies of the past 8 years. The failure by the entrenched corporate Democratic Party to uphold the Constitution and impeach the worst criminals ever to hold the offices of President and Vice-President in this country for massive amounts of High Crimes and Misdemeanors proves the lie of any true claim to lead a crippled nation. The Quislings are waiting to be elected by default instead of actually standing for the true principles of a Constitutional Republic.

     Ever reply from my "Democratic" elected Representatives has merely contained pure sophistry to justify they inaction against the fascist administration. In some cases, especially related to war and occupation, they actually defended the administration. My disgust was to the point of nausea. Democrat? not my definition. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the leaders of this descent into hell for this nation and continue to be co-conspirators in the deaths of thousands of human beings throughout the globe. When the depression hits again, the private equity and hedge fund monopolists WILL impose a suspension of the Constitution in order to deal with the "emergency" created by themselves. How so many so-called thinking beings can continue to be led down the dark paths of fascism is truly beyond belief. Unfortunately, that is the fate of a nation that so easily surrended its soul to Bush/Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, ad nauseum.

     I WILL vote for Ralph. I refuse to vote again for "more of the same". The best thing that could happen is a complete revolution against the "two party" system. It is a joke and a complete con job to institutionalize corporate rule. Until the rest of you come to your senses, this nation is doomed as any form of a democracy.

     Posted by jemorg at 02/26/2008 @ 2:00pm

148. Alternate link to that animated map of the 'purple-staters' by county & election, Copy/paste this link:

     http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t108/natureboypics/Multiyear3.gif

     It's very enlightening about our electorate:

     Posted by Giordano Rios at 02/26/2008 @ 2:02pm

149. It's good to see the Nation take a stand for common sense. While other media outlets dupe us with the shell game of Personality, your magazine cuts to the heart of our political situation. A presidential candidacy tainted by ego and personal ambition is not to be tolerated, and by having the courage to speak truth to power you have reaffirmed my faith in your energetic hostility to the'duopoly' (excellent word that by itself may drive some fringe Democrats to the ranks of the Socialists and the Greens). Yes, when principle meets electoral politics on the highway, somebody has to blink. It takes the progressive leadership of the Nation to remind us who that is. By the way, when is the next cruise?

     Posted by jcaton at 02/26/2008 @ 2:19pm

150. Patronizing and wrong-headed. Why not recognize that Ralph, as usual, has a valid point? Both Obama and Clinton have lousy health-care programs that are little more than a wink and a nod to the health case industry, neither have said a damn word about the need for revitalizing organized labor, nor an intelligent approach to our so-called war on terror, and much more. Both are spouting canned blather intending not to challenge or offend anyone. I like having at least one person out there speaking the truth.

     Posted by grifross at 02/26/2008 @ 2:26pm

151. Yawn. The Nation is committed to the Democratic Party. What else is new. In the 1870s, when Reconstruction was being dismantled, guess which liberal magazine cheered on the Democrats who were anxious to roll back the gains of the Civil War?

     In 1867, President Andrew Johnson had run into a conflict with the Radical Republicans in the Congress, who passed legislation to break the back of Southern reaction. When Johnson kept cutting deals to maintain white power in the South, he was impeached. In a December 5th 1867 editorial on the impeachment, the Nation spelled out its opposition to the impeachment:

     "It must now be confessed those who were of this way of thinking [namely that the Radical Republicans were going too far], and they were many, have proved to be not very far wrong. It is not yet too late for the majority in Congress to retrace its steps and turn to serious things. The work before it is to bring the South back to the Union on the basis-of equal rights, and not to punish the President or provide farms for negroes or remodel the American Government."

     No wonder they want Nader to keep his trap shut.

     Posted by lnp3 at 02/26/2008 @ 2:34pm

152. To Katrina vanden Heuvel:

     Here is part of a blog that I came accross on "Economists for Obama":

     "I don't have any problem with an independent candidate joining the race to push the political conversation to the left--I just wish it was someone who's speaking style didn't resemble that of the crazy dude on the street corner near my apartment. If the entire point of your campaign is to get your message out, you should be someone who can communicate the message. How about someone like Katrina vanden Heuvel, Amy Goodman, or Noam Chomsky (if he weren't 80)? I'm watching Nader on CNN, and I can barely understand what's he trying to say."

     Think about it Katrina.

     I know you've got a great job, and I'm not sure how you'd keep it while running for President, but.... I was trying to think of a 'champion for the left'- someone who would say the right things, new what they were saying, and would say it in a way people would actually listen. No more 80 year old men, or bat-shit-crazy looking leftists, or completley unknown activists or personalities.

     really, seriously. Think about it.

     Posted by dustinchicago at 02/26/2008 @ 2:40pm

153. All this is gobbelty-gook. Bottom line is do we want another Facist to take the helm of this nation? Nader ensured the outcome the first time and now threatens the same thing. Anywhere to the left of present is better than now. His running is treasonous to his own ideals. Sometimes being practical beats ideology.

     Posted by nixl at 02/26/2008 @ 2:46pm

154. Oh Hogwash!

     For those of us who support Ralph's campaigns ('00 and '04), it's have never been about extending his legacy or inflating his ego, its about supporting issues beneath his banner. Its really insulting and demeaning to suggest otherwise. If the Democrats really didn't want Ralph instead of attacking his characters they would triangulate and then integrate his progressive issues.

     If Clinton or Obama want my vote (until I cast it it belongs to me) they're going to have to earn it, by flanking left instead of right come election time.

     Ralph is almost a hundred years old. I'm pretty sure he has better thing to do with his knees and back than walk the gauntlet of a campaign.

     Posted by verninino at 02/26/2008 @ 2:53pm

155. Why doesn't Ralph run for Congress? Why Presdient?----Posted by HMAN23 02/26/2008 @ 12:39pm

     Because he doesn't get to be on "Meet The Press" or CNN's morning show or "Fox & Friends" or Larry King or Bill Maher or "The Daily Show" or This Week With Mr Snuffalupocus if he's doing something realistic that he can't excuse if he loses.

     Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 2:55pm

156. I voted for Nader in 2004, and I'll likely vote for him again this time. Obama will not be that different from the three Presidents preceeding him. However, if I lived in a swing state, I might vote for Obama, simply because I don't want John McInsane getting us into a nuclear war over Vladimir Putin telling a joke about how McInsane has to use Viagra in order to...uh...do whatever horrible things it is he and Cindy do to each other. Ugh, I feel permanently soiled just allowing that thought to be called into my mind!

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/26/2008 @ 2:57pm

157. "Whatever tenuous justification Ralph had for splitting the Dem vote in 2000 is long past"

     First off, the Democratic vote is whatever vote the Democrats actually freakin' get. They aren't entitled to the votes of people who wish to vote Green, or for some other alternative. Nader split NOTHING. If all those idiots who voted for Gore had instead voted for Nader, then we'd have had some real change in this country.

     Secondly, there remains every good reason for Ralph Nader to run again; Barack Obama is just as much of a corporate shill as were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Some of us aren't willing to settle for not-quite-as-bad-the-Republicans. If that means the Republicans win, so be it. Maybe the Democrats should consider running on a meaningful platform?

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/26/2008 @ 3:03pm

158. "Why do folks like Ms vanden Heuvel and Mr Nichols CONTINUE to keep thinking that Nader is merely naive in these runs...

     and not on a huge ego trip?"

     Please don't project your vile cynicism onto Mr. Nader.

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/26/2008 @ 3:07pm

159. It's amazing how the Greenies ignore the simple obvious facts. Ralph cannot win. His contribution, if effective, will result in nothing the Greenies want from government. To the contrary, they will get a lot more of what they don't want. We will get another Bush or even worse! So their logic here might be: let's just make things so bad maybe next time there might be a backlash. Well this is "Next Time". the best we can do is Obama or Clinton, not Huckabie, not McCain. These are are choices. Do we have to live thru another 8 year nightmare?

     Posted by nixl at 02/26/2008 @ 3:10pm

160. "Why can't you "true" progressives come up with someone who isn't a pathetic attention seeker?Is that what a true progressive is?"

     Yeah, we wouldn't want a guy running for President to actually draw attention to himself. Heavens to Betsy, one of you - Quick! - pour me a vermouth!

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/26/2008 @ 3:11pm

161. Ralph Don't Run ...

     Although I deeply respect your immense contribution to the United States you are very remiss in one aspect. You haven't engaged the problem with a stand alone political party. In this respect you are much like Cesar Chavez in that by making the fight a personal one you have failed to leave behind a lasting political infrastructure both locally and nationally.

     What this country needs is the rise of another political party , and Ralph , you have undermined that.

     Posted by mmckinl at 02/26/2008 @ 3:21pm

162. "It's amazing how the Greenies ignore the simple obvious facts. Ralph cannot win. His contribution, if effective, will result in nothing the Greenies want from government. To the contrary, they will get a lot more of what they don't want. We will get another Bush or even worse! So their logic here might be: let's just make things so bad maybe next time there might be a backlash. Well this is "Next Time". the best we can do is Obama or Clinton, not Huckabie, not McCain. These are are choices. Do we have to live thru another 8 year nightmare?"

     Its like Mr. Nader says; if the Democrats can't win in 2008, then they should disband their party and let someone else serve as the electoral opposition to the Republicans for a while.

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/26/2008 @ 3:23pm

163. "What this country needs is the rise of another political party , and Ralph , you have undermined that."

     No, David Cobb was the guy who undermined that.

     Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/26/2008 @ 3:24pm

164. IF Nader had not been in the 2000 election, then....

     IF republican voters were smarter in the 2000 election, then...

     IF people who don't vote had voted in the 2000 election, then...

     IF Bush were not a criminal with friends in Florida and on the Supreme Court, then...

     OF all these, only Democrats would pick the first as the most significant. Only a Democrat would say, Of course he CAN be a candidate, but he SHOULDN'T!

     How can you fear the only person who makes any sense?

     Ralph's agenda is MY agenda.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 3:27pm

165. Our political system does not allow a 3rd party to emerge. That's a fact for this place and time. To succeed, one must come from within the 2 party system. If Ralph wanted to lead he should have joined a party, got elected and then chart his course. As is, he is just a spoiler and a spoiler for his own beleifs at that. That's why his intelligence is in question.

     Posted by nixl at 02/26/2008 @ 3:27pm

166. Kevin,

     You are stuck in a dream. The Dems are not going anywhere. Until yesterday Mr. Nader was out of the picture. Who do you think is more likely to disappear? Who was gone until yesterday?

     Spudboy,

     Dream on but Ralph will never win. Go ahead and vote for him so we can get another bunch of mean spirited human beings in office who will trash the world kill more people. You want good but you actually vote for bad.

     Posted by nixl at 02/26/2008 @ 3:34pm

167. I don't remotely expect Ralph to win. It's not the point of his candidacy.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 3:39pm

168. the point of his candidacy is PRESSURE. It's what historically gets results form the Democratic party. Without it they are not at all progressive.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 3:41pm

169. I didn't say I will vote for Ralph. I'm glad he's running.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 3:43pm

170. It's incredible that the Nation published such an ill-informed piece (from the editor no less). I'm a bit disappointed because The Nation tends to champion social issue that are not always in the mainstream but are still very important. I just though that everybody on the left woke up and realized that after the last 8 years the Democrats, with the exception of maybe 5 (nobodies like Kucinich and Feingold) DO NOT in any way shape or form champion many of the causes that Nation about which many Nation readers are concerned. In a country of over 300 million, to have only two parties and just vote for the better of two you don't like should be no longer acceptable. From Vietnam to Iraq and many smaller engagements in-between the Democrats have proven to be just as heartless (but, in all fairness, a bit less reckless) as the Republicans. Until we stop voting as if this were a game and as serious as life and death, which in many ways it can be, we will never pull ourselves out of this mess. This is why I'm for Nader this time around and, after being let down time and time again by the Democrats, no longer believe that "You're giving votes to the Republicans" non-sense. I think the Democrats in the house already gave enough votes to the Bush policy.

     Posted by dougsnj at 02/26/2008 @ 4:02pm

171. I watched Nader's ego trip disguised as a campaign in 2000. I watched the rerun in 2004. The only thing that surprises me about this time is that the Republican-owned media think that giving him a voice will make the Democrats tremble. I don't think anyone outside of the most embittered of progressives out there is even interested in listening this time. He cares about seeing "Ralph Nader" in headlines and being asked on talking-head TV, as a quadrennial ritual, and nothing else. The sad part is that the "nothing else" includes those who care(d) about him.

     Posted by DFW at 02/26/2008 @ 4:12pm

172. Well the way you all are talking there seems to be nothing but Ralph. If you don't plan on voting for him, perhaps you can persuade your likeminded freinds to do the same. It didn't happen last time and look what we got -hell on steroids. I really wish for someone like Ralph or Kucinich or Edwards, but reality bites and what we have is Obama and Hillary. Ralph should stay away. He will only hurt his own causes.

     Posted by nixl at 02/26/2008 @ 4:14pm

173. Ralph as egotist is a stupid and unsupportable idea.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 4:14pm

174. It is not Ralph Nader's fault that we had 8 years of Republican abuse. Get it through your heads.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 4:15pm

175. I didn't say I'm not voting for Nader, either.

     You do like to jump to conclusions, NIXL. That explains a lot.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 4:17pm

176. Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 4:20pm

177. Well aren't you sooo smart "spud"boy. You didn't say this or you didn't say that. Who cares? What you made clear is your confusion. You need to talk to someone real who might explain reality to you. Not voting is worst of all. Pressure from Ralphie only backfires. There are 3 options in voting (left, right and "not")so I don't think I really jumped all that much. If I helped you understand anything well perhaps it was worth my time, so this is my last posting on the subject.

     DFW has a good point and I remain hopeful. Dougsnj is well intentioned, idealistic but not grounded in the present mission. WE NEED TO GET THE FACISTS OUT OF OFFICE. That's all that matters now! We can fine tune later. Adios!

     Posted by nixl at 02/26/2008 @ 4:32pm

178. I didn't say I'm not voting. I just never said WHO I will vote for.

     Who cares? YOU do, because you keep trying to mis-characterize the debate based on my comments.

     We need to get the fascists out of GOVERNMENT, not just OFFICE, and nobody but RALPH seems to recognize it.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 4:40pm

179. Nixl, "There are 3 options in voting (left, right and "not")" - do you really believe that the dems are on the left side of the political spectrum LOL!! and who were the facists under the Carter administration who facilitate the genocide on East Timor? who led the embargo from 1992 to 2000 that killed 1 million iraqis, 80% being 5-year old and younger? Isn't it facism? get your facts straight. And didn't Clinton voted for the war and for the funding of the war every time the Bill was presented to the Senate? Face it, the Democratic party has been presenting this same "anti-war" facade at least since the 1968 "Clean Gene" McCarthy campaign. There are a bunch of hypocrits - like it or not there is no left - there are only 2 right-wing parties. Progressists do not vote for Nader because they think he has a chance to win - they vote for him simply because he has a better resume.

     Posted by pilule at 02/26/2008 @ 5:40pm

180. But, nobody's answering the question. Outcomes are the point of elections, not statements.

     Is the US better off after 7+ years of Frat Boy George than we would have been with Al Gore? Can anybody here say we are? sometimes you have to say "My chances of getting what I want are better (NOT PERFECT) with A than with B."

     Look at what we got by allowing The Ralph to split off just enough votes to allow the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME in the history of the US to become a sad, embarrassing reality.

     Elections are about probabilities and outcomes. Sorry to bring you the bad news.

     Posted by Desert Son at 02/26/2008 @ 5:53pm

181. Look at what we got by allowing The Ralph to split off just enough votes to allow the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME in the history of the US to become a sad, embarrassing reality.

     It's not his fault. Get that through your head. We allowed the election to be stolen. If Ralph had not been there that may not have happened and it may still have. Regardless, he had no obligation not to run. If you recognize that, then shut up and support independents like a progressive and quit scapegoating Ralph.

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 5:59pm

182. Brunowe has hit the nail on the head - instant runoff voting. If Nader had devoted his energy to that starting in 2004, we might have it in a few states by now. It doesn't have to be nationwide. California has a very accessible initiative system, that should be able to deliver instant runoff for presidential electors.

     With Instant runoff 3rd parties really have a chance to be heard. Imagine the green party polling 25% in California! Possible with instant runoff. That happens in just one state, and the pols will have to take notice, because it can also start to get 3rd party congressmen elected.

     Posted by richard18 at 02/26/2008 @ 6:15pm

183. Of course he is entitled to run, just like anybody else. But, he knew he'd be taking votes away from Gore, not Bush.

     The people who voted for Ralphie are the ones who are at fault, thinking they were making a "statement" because Al didn't fit every point on their template. All they were really doing was making sure Boy George got more votes in Florida. More votes in Florida means he got all the Electoral Votes of that state, enough to barely squeak out a victory. The popular vote doesn't elect the President, the Electoral College does. It's a winner take all proposition. And, the citizens of the country were the losers.

     Nadir knew the implications of his candidacy when he decided to run and his voters should have known the implications of throwing their votes away. A vote for Ralph was a vote for George in Florida and Ohio becasue the margins are so incredibly thin.

     Posted by Desert Son at 02/26/2008 @ 6:25pm

184. Desert Son, "The Ralph to split off just enough votes to allow the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME in the history of the US..." you too has been brainwashed by the media. Look at the facts: According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader in 2000 were first time voters, formerly Perot voters. Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic Party. Remember that the Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country." Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats. If you are looking for someone to blame look at the democratic party who approved the deceptive butterfly ballot and cost while defending corporate interests. Remember that the democratic party also voted for or failed to stop: The Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president, The Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, The Medicare fiasco, etc. Who first said that Saddam has "weapons of mass destruction"? Bill Clinton. The Clinton administration set the path to war, like it or not, and you would like us to vote for those fools, hell no!!

     Posted by pilule at 02/26/2008 @ 6:26pm

185. The people who voted for Ralphie are the ones who are at fault, thinking they were making a "statement" because Al didn't fit every point on their template

     Only the people who voted in FL make any difference to the outcome. And we should blame them because they did not understand that criminals would rig the election and that they were our only hope?

     It's their fault and not the criminals? It's not Gore's fault for not putting up more of a fight?

     It's not Kerry and Edwards fault for being nowhere near Ohio on election day or having anything to say about the fraud afterwards?

     It's not Bill Clinton's fault for caving to the right on media consolidation that helps makes so many people vote against themselves?

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 6:34pm

186. I don't recall saying who I was voting for?

     Also, I sure don't know what "polls" you're referring to. Sure doesn't square with a single thing I've read in any respected publications. You're saying "Greens" are naturally more inclined to be Republicans? Show me one shred of reliable, valid statistical evidence to prove that.

     Just like Perot took votes from GHWB, Nader absolutely took votes from Gore.

     Posted by Desert Son at 02/26/2008 @ 6:34pm

187. Desert son "respected publications" LOL!! I'd like to know what you read.

     Posted by pilule at 02/26/2008 @ 6:39pm

188. Third-hand anecdotes and blog entries aren't the same as statisticians and journalists who have to submit stories for review to supervisors and editors before they're published.

     I still want to know where all those "Green" Republicans are.

     Anybody got some valid statistics to prove their case?

     Posted by Desert Son at 02/26/2008 @ 6:48pm

189. I don't care who Greens would have voted for in FL. It's not Ralph's fault the election was stolen. What kind of logic is that? How can you blame a falsified outcome on a name on the ballot?

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 7:15pm

190. As a child of one of the original Naders' Raiders, and a local activist in my own right, I find it appalling that the Democrats can continue to use the name "democrat" yet proceed to challenge Nader's ballot access as well as his right to enter in the first place.

     Not only has Ralph suffered the ridicule of corporate execs and the corporate media during the past forty years, in the past decade his own friends both in the Democratic party and the media have made a point in putting Ralph down.

     "Its about his ego," is the popular complaint seen around many so called "progressive blogs." Listening to Ralph speak at rallies and at lectures, he doesnt' talk about "I, me" he talks about "we," how "we" have failed our most basic principles of participatory democracy.

     Sadly, it has become a haunting reality that the new "progressive movement" is nothing more than a rebirth of the late boomer years, we have become a movement that places greater emphasis on "me," than "us."

     In 40 years of watching politics, never has it become more obvious that both republicans and democrats are using the poor and uneducated as tools. While the "middle class," has become the popular symbol of Obama's hope campaign, we of the working poor have been once again taken for granted...

     I will not allow my vote to be taken as such. I will demand candidates to take stands that benefit the whole, not just the party elite.

     Posted by Phil-Ochs at 02/26/2008 @ 8:21pm

191. Posted by PILULE 02/26/2008 @ 12:26pm

     Don't really know why... but that post reminded me of this [youtube.com]...

     Well... maybe, now that I think about it... maybe I do know why.

     ;^)

     Posted by ttr at 02/26/2008 @ 8:23pm

192. It is painfully obvious that 'Rovian tactics' are inspiring a mighty turnout of Nader shills in this thread.

     Fool me twice... shame on me...

     Posted by ttr at 02/26/2008 @ 8:46pm

193. TTR, I believe in the democratic process. What do you believe in?

     Posted by spudboy at 02/26/2008 @ 8:50pm

194. Don't listen to Pollitt, Ralph. She doesn't know what she's talking about.

     She's endorsed a candidate who is a corporate Democrat, pro free trade, pro death penalty, against single payer, and for American Empire.

     Sad, Katha Pollitt, truly sad.

     Posted by neaguy at 02/26/2008 @ 8:59pm

195. It's almost laughable that there are people here blaming Ralph for the last eight years. Don't you think that's over simplifying it a bit? The only people to blame are our selves for letting dweedle-dee and dweedle-dumb think that the only choice is between bad or worse, so don't give me that "pragmatism" non-sense.

     Posted by dougsnj at 02/26/2008 @ 9:13pm

196. Endless calculations about what is probable or possible miss the point. Left movements don't have to get elected to make a difference. Who will discuss the issues that Nader does? Sometimes The Nation does, which is ironic.

     And Editor K, I'm remembering your "support no war candidate" pledge. Who are you going to endorse if not Nader? Oh yeah, there's an escape clause: the elastic definition of "war candidate" could easily be stretched to the point that Dick Nixon of 1968 is not a "war candidate".

     Posted by VISTABRANCH at 02/26/2008 @ 9:39pm

197. nothing points out how under the weather our progressive movement is like a Nader run for president -- he's at once laughed at for what's obviously a protest campaign and warned ominously that he could destroy Democratic chances. Gore and Kerry were rendered lugubrious automatons by a party spoiled by being the only place for progressives to go. Either man, Gore or Kerry, speaking independently, can be eloquent, intelligent, and powerful. The DNC and DLC has cost us the last two elections, not Nader.

     all 17 or 18 of the third-party candidates in Florida in 2000 had more votes than the difference Bush "won" the state by. The DNC and Nation contributors have tried to eviscerate Nader for the party's own lack of ideas, courage, and integrity. To call Nader an egomaniac is a real stretch -- you mean for living like a monk? Clinton and Obama are pure establishment, and though I'll vote for either one against McCain in November, I'm proud of Ralph Nader ignoring calls to come into the fold of establishment politics despite the laughter, humiliation, and abuse he'll suffer for daring to run.

     Posted by sape at 02/26/2008 @ 11:04pm

198. The general attitude that I see here is "No Ralph, don't bring important issues to the forefront of the American consciousness". Ralph Nader isn't responsible for Al Gore's "loss" in FL. Al Gore is responsible. If he had maybe changed his positions to try and get votes from the liberal/progressive base of the Democratic party he wouldn't have lost. G.W. Bush didn't try to win over moderate voters, and he "won", the Democrats need to quit being the party of the moderate and start getting back to the issues that their base believes in or they deserve to lose the election. When a man like Dennis Kucinich is marginalized by the party whose platform he espouses to a tee you know that the party has lost sight of the people that are in charge of it. Us. We the people. So is say RUN RALPH RUN! Because if John McCain wins by getting enough people to vote for him that want to be at war forever then that means the Democrats, not Ralph Nader, have screwed up.

     Posted by drkrunk68 at 02/26/2008 @ 11:30pm

199. Katrina, you talk of the deafening silence but you are wrong. I am a progressive voter who is not convinced that Barrack Obama will do anything to bring on the fundamental changes this country really needs. Either Obama or Clinton can probably keep the plates spinning for another few years and it is true that their stated agenda is better than McCain. McCain would be a disaster. That's not enough for me. We need to go after the military industrial complex, get the troops home immediately, not in 4 years. We need to address issues of consumer safety and the durability of our food supply. We need to approach trade with China from the point of view of protecting the workers that manufacture our goods. We need to totally reevaluate our stand on security issues and civil liberties.

     Will the Democrats do this without pressure from progressives?

     This question can be answered by looking at the response to these issues by Congress. The answer is they will fight every step of the way against the views of progressives even being heard let alone possibly considered. There is no evidence that the Democrats give a damn about progressive causes outside of the branding distinction between them and the Republicans.

     If Barrack Obama wants my vote he's going to have to deal with this stuff and convince me that he at least realizes these issues exist. He can start by coming up with a position on the Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization act which will be in his committee soon. He originally supported this thought crime bill. Now the people who answer phones in his Senate and campaign offices have been instructed that he does not have a position on the matter.

     I have not yet decided to give my vote to Obama and I am very glad that there will be somebody in the race that does represent my point of view. The Democrats don't get my vote by default and if that's the only argument you have as to why I should vote for Obama and not Nader then you lose.

     Posted by CitizenWorm at 02/27/2008 @ 02:33am

200. Actually you are highly incorrect when you write: "Look around: no one, including former strong supporters, called on you to run this year. Doesn't that deafening silence say something?"

     In fact, over a year ago Greens for Nader got together and set up the DraftNader.org website, partly at the call of Peter Camejo (a long-time supporter of Nader). In October 82% of the California Green Party members voted to include Nader [mtgreens.org] as candidate in their Presidential primary as the GPUS presidential candidate--he subsequently won 61% of the vote. That's hardly what I would call a "deafening silence."

     Now, perhaps in your opinion what Greens want is not very important, but as the fact stands that Nader maintains a strong following among many progressives, independents, and Greens. Your article is therefore highly misleading. We very much do want Ralph to run because no one else is going to discuss the issues we consider important.

     Posted by N0574 at 02/27/2008 @ 05:12am

201. Ralph Nader must run because the hack liberals and the corrupt democrats need to be shaken. A party that is so blatantly misogynist and so ready to cannibalize its own out of shear fear of not being cool with uninformed voters deserves to loose and it might.

     Obama is just more of the same. His vacuous blathering is going to get McCain in the WH like a perfect storm. To offer a candidate with a poor and revealing voting record and with no real world experience is a manifestation of the desperation and the break down of the democratic party.

     I'm in Texas and I am working for the democratic campaign and over and over I hear how democrats are voting for McCain out of frustration with the media coverage of both Hillary and Obama. The obvious run to the "winner" by Dodd and the rest of the pack of hyenas that make up the party is so transparent that voters are turned off here.

     Now we can offer the democratic party a protest vote. Get your shit together, how in all reason and honesty can we put some one so oblivious to his own short comings with the hubris of a Bush to take the responsibility of running the country. The cult of the left appears to be no different than the cult of the right. Change will come only when the people wake up. The reason other democrats are endorsing him is because they want to keep their fat asses comfortable and not lose seats or positions in the party.

     Raph Nader is a beacon in a sea of darkness. He has as much right to present his platform as anyone else and if the democrats again can't win with a landslide in particular this election then it should be clear that they need to clean house and they can begin with the spineless wonders they put in the congress down through the entrenched shysters and hacks that have dragged the party down for decades. Nader is so clear and correct and incorruptible that he is change. He has changed the way we even live now by his constant fight with the powers that want to keep you fat, happy and stupid as most Americans are now. Unfortunately Americans brave enough to step into the world of reality and fight their real enemies living right here, corporate greed, political corruption and an under educated electorate.

     All you need to do is review Obama's voting record and his do nothing history. What?! He did three things while in office and when he wasn't a Senator he spoke against the war, yet voted to finance it over and over again. Hey get a grip, wake up and smell the coffee.

     Posted by click212 at 02/27/2008 @ 08:35am

202. Ralph Nader is a self-indulgent, super egomaniac. He just leaves a huge bitter taste in my mouth and now I just find him extremely offensive.

     Posted by felinetta at 02/27/2008 @ 1:02pm

203. I am shocked by Katrina vanden Heuvel's diatribe against Ralph Nader. She is apparently marching to a different drummer, and in a different parade than most Americans. I'm shocked to read this drivel in The Nation, of all progressive publications! Vanden Heuvel has apparently succumbed to the fear mongering and has become a "good German."

     First, as Greg Palast and Black Box Voting has proved over and over and over again, and now many convictions and lawsuits later, that it was NEVER about hanging chads, and it was NEVER about Nader. The 2000 and 2004 elections were STOLEN, RIGGED - then the Supreme Court APPOINTED George W. Bush, without a majority of the vote. Pouring salt in the wound, Al Gore did not speak out when he KNEW what was going on. This was the judicial crime of the century! We know it, and vanden Heuvel knows it. To pretend otherwise, to an audience/readership of informed progressives is an insult to our intelligence, and fear mongering, at best. She should be ashamed. Does she think we depend entirely upon The Nation for our information?

     Second, all I had to see is the Dems - given a mandate from The People, then REFUSING to impeach the most murderous, corrupt, inept, incompetent, criminal and most destructive president and vice president EVER in this country - to know that the DEMS ARE NOT THE ANSWER. The Dems have betrayed the American People, and have become collaborators in this WAR-FOR-PROFIT, which is MASS MURDER. Over ONE MILLION IRAQIS and AFGHANIS WERE MURDERED FOR PROFIT, their nations destroyed and looted, and the Dems did their best to help, including Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), War Profiteer. So, please do not tell me that THE DEMS ARE THE ANSWER - THEY ARE NOT.

     The world is drowning in a river of Bush/Cheney lies. Treason was committed to cover up a crime of lies (Plame), possibly costing the lives of those who were tracking WMDs (and we're safer?). Bush's illegal war has intentionally looted this nation's treasury in order to steal the resources of Iraq and the Iraqi People. ADMITTED illegal surveillance. TORTURE - international war crimes. CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE CONGRESS. Violation of their oaths of office. Habeas Corpus GONE. The Posse Comitatus Act GONE. America is being turned into a prison camp, with the attending WALL. The list of Bush/Cheney's HIGH CRIMES (NO MISDEMEANORS) is as long as my arm, in 10 point type, and the Dems REFUSE TO IMPEACH.

     It makes me wonder what they're waiting for: to catch Bush or Cheney standing over a dead body with a smoking gun?? HOW MANY "HIGH CRIMES" DO THE DEMS NEED BEFORE THEY IMPEACH? Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Meyers, et al, should be sitting in the dock at The Hague, as Hitler's henchmen did, and for the same reason. YET THE DEMS REFUSE TO ACT. Our democracy is in shambles, YET THE DEMS REFUSE TO ACT.

     Katrina vanden Heuvel wants Nader to give the Dems another chance to end the 'duopoly'??? Are you kidding me?? After lo these many years, the 'duopoly' is ALIVE AND WELL, with the blessings of the Dems. Deaf, dumb and blind to the voices of Americans, the Dems continue to rig the debates, with 'memorandums of understanding' (MOUs) in collaboration with the Republicans. In the context of these rigged debates, the Dems and Republicans continue to exclude and censor third party candidates, voices of truth, and the will of the American People, from the debates. This exclusion guarantees that questions about the real issues continue to be either not asked, or skimmed over: #1 being the corporate ownership of our government, which, by definition, is FASCMISM. The Dems have been as complicit in selling our democracy to the highest bidder as the Republicans have. So the DEMS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.

     Furthermore, the DEMS are the ones filing lawsuits effectively keeping Nader off the ballot in every state they can. So THE DEMS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.

     "Open Debates" http://www.opendebates.org, with a membership spanning from the far right to the far left, confirms and exposes rigged debates, and has filed lawsuits in an attempt to possibly salvage this so-called democracy. Readers would do well to do some research on this site to understand how we got to this point of "duopoly."

     So don't tell me, again, that Nader is the problem! Nader may very well be our salvation. IF the media would not censor the truth, and not censor people like Nader, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Americans who keep their heads in the sand, trying to figure out who is kicking their butts, would have enough information (that would shock them) to vote as responsible informed citizens.

     We won't have a chance in hell of keeping our democracy with a Republican president, since 'conservatives' CONSERVE NOTHING: Not life, not liberty, not peace, not democracy, not the $6 trillion projected surplus they were handed, not our economy, not fair trade, not education, not the environment, not living wages, not health care, not science, and especially NOT LAW AND ORDER. At least I'll have a shot in hell with Nader. With the Dems, I'm not so sure. Clinton is part of the problem. And, though Obama does show some sign of uniting America behind the cause of peace, I'm still not so sure of him, either.

     NADER is America's Citizen Number One, as Vanden Heuvel says. And Nader IS the VOICE OF LOGIC, REASON and TRUTH…all being the foundations of true democracy, SO WHY SHOULDN'T NADER BE OUR FIRST CHOICE??

     So, Ms. Vanden Heuvel, let me hereby publicly announce the end of my life-long membership in the Democratic Party. I am registering GREEN and voting for Ralph Nader.

     Posted by AlwaysAskWHY at 02/27/2008 @ 1:59pm

204. The "DUOPOLY" Issue: BEARS REPEATING.

     I think Ralph Nader may have coined the phrase "duopoly" as it applies to our current system of government controlled by two parties – in collaboration with each other, I might add. And Nader was one of the first to speak out against rigged debates that have excluded him and other Democratic and Republican candidates, as well as third party candidates, who speak truth to power – ensuring the duopoly. Yet, Katrina vanden Heuvel wants him, and the American People, to give the Democrats yet another chance to end the 'duopoly'? Hah! That's like the fox guarding the hen house. What possible interest could the Democrats (or Republicans) have for ending the duopoly?

     The Democrats, in collaboration with the Republicans, continue to rig the debates using 'memorandums of understanding' (MOUs) or contracts that stipulate everything from the type of podium to seating of candidates, to questions that can or can NOT be asked, and worse, who can participate and by what rules.

     Democrats and Republicans very UN-democratically guarantee questions about the real issues be NOT asked, or skimmed over: #1 being the corporate ownership of our government and the media, which, by definition, is FASCMISM. Do we ever hear questions about the truth about 9/11, or about the Tri-Lateral Commission, or the Council on Foreign Relations, or about Israel's imprisonment of the Palestinians being funded by the U.S., or how the CIA created the concept of Al Qaeda, or the comparison of Bush's fear tactics to Hitler's strategies? NO. We don't. And there is a reason we don't - because the voices of truth are excluded, GUARANTEEING THE POWER OF THE DUOPOLY.

     The Dems have been as complicit in selling our democracy to the highest bidder as the Republicans. And they are just as responsible for guaranteeing the existence of this country's corrupt, corporate-owned DUOPOLY, through rigged debates.

     "Open Debates" - "http://www.opendebates.org" , with a well-known political membership spanning from the far right to the far left, has exposed the so-called "debates" as being nothing more than rigged Q&As, sponsored and controlled by both the corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), and the corporate-owned media (i.e., GE, which owns NBC/MSNBC, and profits from all this death and destruction). Is there any reason to trust that they will ask the REALLY hard questions?

     Open Debates has filed petitions to revoke the CPD's non-profit status and other lawsuits in an attempt to salvage this so-called democracy. Readers would do well to educate themselves in order to understand how we got to this point of "duopoly."

     Watch videos of Open Debates' Press conferences by going to http://www.C-Span.org and Search for "Open Debates"

     Take back your democracy! VOTE NADER.

     Posted by AlwaysAskWHY at 02/27/2008 @ 3:39pm

205. Katrina, You've got it wrong again and by a country mile. Nader did not cause Gore nor Kerry to lose. They lost on their own due to their combined lethargy and wholly inadequate presentation of a genuinely progressive platform. Then, with a rabid President in office, the rest of our Democrat representatives in the Congress did nothing to stop the madness that ensued. Obama presents only a half hearted and poorly detailed agenda for his potential presidency. That's not good enough for me. Read the transcript of Nader's announcement during his appearance on Meet the Press. He is the only person suggesting a cogent set of ideas that are aimed at benefiting the American working people, the vast middle-class and the poor. If Obama does get the Democratic nomination and offers a program for his possible presidency that is close to Nader's, I would then consider voting for him.

     Posted by jackstar at 02/27/2008 @ 4:00pm

206. "with John McCain calling for continuing the war for 100 years"

     Although this idea that John McCain wants to "continue the war for 100 years" is being bandied about in the media and blogosphere, it is not what the man said. I expect contributors to The Nation to get their facts straight, but am seeing an awful lot of nonsense like this being printed in The Nation. His actual comments make it clear that he is talking about maintaining a presence in Iraq for a hundred years. That is not the same thing as "continuing the war". The United States has permanent military bases throughout the world, and it's pretty clear McCain is suggesting a permanent base in Iraq. Based on the widespread interpretation of McCain's comments, it would appear that many people believe the United States has been at war with Germany for the past fifty-five years. Here is a transcription of the exchange that prompted this hundred-year-war notion:

     Question: President Bush is talking about our staying in Iraq for 50 years...

     McCain: Make it a hundred. We've been in South Korea...we've been in Japan for 60 years; we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me. As long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Quaeda is training, recruiting, and equiping and motivating people every single day.

     -Penn Taylor

     Posted by Penn3 at 02/27/2008 @ 4:11pm

207. RUN RALPH RUN! The Democrats don't deserve our vote if they don't impeach this president. It's OK to siphon off the vote from them; it shows them that they can't win without including progressives. As long as they can hold the spectre of the Republicans out there, the sheep will follow them into the same policies that Republicans devised in the first place. Otherwise, how could Hillary even run with her record of supporting Bush?

     Posted by newdetroit at 02/27/2008 @ 4:44pm

208. Posted by PENN3

     And having troops in the "Holy lands" of the muslims is exactly what motivates extremist to attack the US. That and our blatantly biased support of Israel.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 02/27/2008 @ 5:13pm

209. Options are bad, because voters are not smart enough to make realpolitik decisions. That seems to be a common theme running through many of these comments that suggest keeping Nader off the ballot is the path to victory for the Democrats in 2008. It's a terribly insulting proposition, but perhaps it's true -- voters are not well-known for making informed decisions. Consider how well the Republicans' conflation of tax policies that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy with pro-Christian, anti-abortion, gay-bashing, xenophobia, and other "culture war" matters has worked. Who is addressing this stuff? Where are the candiates, or, for that matter, the editorialists who are purposefully reaching out to the queer-hating, racist, middle class voter and pointing out that he or she has been sold a line of BS by the Replublican party? Or does no one want to risk guilt by association?

     Does anyone really think that 4 or 8 years of Clinton II or Obama is going to reshape the politics of the US? I certainly don't. I dislike the Democratic party almost as much as I dislike the Republican party. Why aren't the electoral margins going to be razor-thin again in 2012? Stop complaining about the 2000 election and reach out to these people who have been duped by the Republicans. I'm not saying the Democrats should move rightward; I'm saying someone needs to make it explicit to the Republican base that they've been sold down the river by their own party. If 50.7% of the country in 2004 still hadn't figured out the Republican ruse, why would anyone think they have by now? Someone needs to patiently explain it. A lot of someones need to patiently explain it. Carping at Nader and his sub-one-percent following is just plain barking up the wrong tree.

     -Penn Taylor

     Posted by Penn3 at 02/27/2008 @ 6:01pm

210. I was so pleased to read Katrina's dignified and appreciative response to a courageous American's lifelong endeavour to make his country safer, and, more critical. However, from this side of The Pond, Ralph's decision to run has largely been met with incredulity. Whatever Ralph's motives are, ego projection, self-acknowledgement, etcetera, he of all people should know by now that America is a two-party political state. Sure, under your constitution, any number of candidates can stand. That's good, theoretically. Actually, following that excruciating 2000 election with counters peering through holes in voting cards in Florida..., well, it wouldn't have occurred at all if Ralph hadn't stood there. But what did we get instead? A nano-miniscule MAJORITY for the Republicans, then 9/11, then The War On Terror, then Iraq, Guantanamo, Americans, high and low, afraid to visit Europe (we get all sorts of overseas visitors/tourists/students here,Dutch/French/German/Irish/Spanish/Australian, etc, but rarely Americans, as we once did) due to the mess their Bush Government has got them into, and, even further American isolation from the World community. Yes, the actuality. Elections do matter. It's arithmetic. It's not even maths! Don't take my word for it, check www.whorulesamerica?, "Why Third Parties Don't Work" and "The What If Nader Campaign 2000". Don't mess it up this time...Your choice affects us all. Obamago!

     Posted by Regarde at 02/27/2008 @ 8:00pm

211. Nader didn't stop Gore from Winning. Gore won. Gore not taking office was not Ralph Nader's fault. If the people of this country are going to continue to let Republicans who did not win elections take office that cannot be blamed on Ralph Nader. I have a novel idea: let's elect Ralph this time! Now THAT would be CHANGE and not just change for change sake.

     I am still more dismayed that the Nation is falling into the trap of believing Obama's vagueness is meaningful. I haven't found all that I would require to vote for him. I have found deal killers. Where/when did he say he was going to work for meaningful national health care? What about his absences on controversial issues both locally and nationally and the failure to mention abortion on his web site? DeeDee Myers was right that a woman who ran with the little experience Obama has would have been labeled "a nutjob."

     I will tell you who has helped the Republicans. It isn't Ralph. It is Obama. When you have a Chicago pol with a corrupt background and no significant experience who is going to seize the Democratic nomination that is how you give a can't-lose election to the Republicans.

     All of these people excited about Obama can get excited about someone real: Ralph. Or if they want a Democrat: Hillary. I don't think Obama can win and I don't think he is going to be that good if he does.

     "Everything" is NOT on the table for this voter. But Obama said it was. That means there is no there there. And those were the words of a candidate I don't think I can vote for. I would have to know more and more of what I know would have to be good.

     Posted by Moccasin at 02/27/2008 @ 8:08pm

212. Though the Nation is imploring Nader not to run and is steadfast in their support of Obama, I think it is the former rather than the latter who best represents the ideals that the Nation champions. Like his rivals, Obama represents corporate interests, and this is reflected in his policies. Neither he nor Clinton have committed to a complete withdrawl from Iraq. His healthcare plan, while marginally better than Hillary's, still fails to acknowledge that most progressive voters are in favor of a single-payer system. He receives most of his campaign donations from Goldman Sachs, a company that made massive profits off of mortgage-backed securities in 2007. According to this article posted on the Institute For Public Accuracy [accuracy.org], he also wants to increase the military by an additional 90,000 troops. Facts like these make one wonder why the Nation's endorsement of Obama does not come with some sort of disclaimer.

     So while I certainly understand why the Nation wants to prevent another GOP controlled White House, I think that the Nation is missing the point. Though it is hard to blame them for jumping on the Obama gravy train, continuing to support the current electoral system by minimizing alternative choices like Nader only undermines any serious belief in the democratic process. "Falling in line" and rallying behind a Democratic candidate, simply because he or she has the most likely chances of winning? That is the Nation's choice, but to imply to your readership that this is the only logical choice is unfair - both to to them and to the other candidates trying to bring about REAL change.

     Posted by Mr. Batard at 02/27/2008 @ 9:45pm

213. We badly need third party because these two are the same. Vicious attacks on the progressive Nader come from dem's who would rather lynch him. Run Ralph, please. You cannot win but you are the only one who could inject new ideas.

     Posted by green33 at 02/27/2008 @ 11:03pm

214. Somebody has to bring these issues into the open, neither of the "mainstream" dems seem to want to address them. Do you think Ralph would gain exposure if he were not running for president? Face it, venues for exposure to truly progressive issues are never available to the general public unless there is some "hook." The presidential race is the hook Ralph needs. In my opinion, Ralph really had nothing to do with Gore losing the election in 2000 - since he didn't lose! Maybe exposure of the election problems that occurred in FLA will prevent corrupt voting officials and a supreme court that is bought and paid for by the Republican party from pulling those stunts again. I welcome Ralphs ability to keep the right issues in the spotlight! That way it is possible that someone besides we "the choir" will get the message.

     Posted by IMFrantic at 02/27/2008 @ 11:27pm

215. People who are concerned about Nader "siphoning off votes" from the Democratic candidate are suffering from myopia, tunnel vision, or worse. Neither Gore nor Kerry "lost" to Bush in 2000 or 2004. They "lost" because the Republican machine STOLE BOTH ELECTIONS!

     It's beyond frustrating to me that so many people STILL DON'T GET IT. Read Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s pieces (both of them) in Rolling Stone. (It's on their web site... so PLEASE READ THEM.) People don't want to try to wrap their feeble brains around the idea that the vote was stolen electronically / digitally... just TOO HARD to try to understand that there "computer stuff" I guess. Yes, you're right, it's not a simple issue we're dealing with here. It requires some research and serious study. It doesn't lend itself to easy soundbites and itsy bitsy blog posts. But this is YOUR VOTE, MY VOTE, and OUR VOTES... the very foundation of our democracy that we're talking about here. So get a clue, wake up, go do some studying, and discover the cancer that has rotted the core of what's left of our "democracy."

     And yes, it goes beyond computerized voting machines. Voter caging, voter registration suppression and sabotage, manipulation of the media message machine, rigged allocation of election resources (polling place allocation based on likely liberal voter districts), covert or overt collusion of local law enforcement in suppressing the vote, widespread collusion of local secretaries of state and elections officials, not counting provisional ballots (or rigging the process)... it goes on and on.

     Both of the last two elections were stolen every which way but straight. Ralph Nader's effect didn't amount to a hill of beans in either case. So making the bogus argument about Nader's purported threat is simply stupid (or ignorant), and really just playing DEFENSIVE POLITICS. When are we going to grow a pair and stop acting like such politically clueless wimps?

     Jeez... Get a clue, people!

     More to the point of our present situation, if we don't watch out, it's going to happen again. Reason why I think so? How about $21 trillion dollars in proven Iraqi oil reserves? (Oil still in the ground.) You think these fascist NeoCon traitors are gonna give up their cut of that pie without a nasty (I mean dirty, lowdown, criminal and treasonous) fight? Better think again! (That's why Mister McWar McCain says we should be willing to be mired in war for the next hundred... hell, the next THOUSAND years!)

     So take off the blinders and smell the storm that's comin'. It ain't gonna be pretty, people.

     Steve

     Posted by antiliar at 02/27/2008 @ 11:43pm

216. The last thing progressives should be doing is trying to suppress people's candidacies. In a democracy, anyone who wants to run for office should be encouraged to do so. The Democrats in 2008 need to do what Gore and Kerry never did: honestly compete for the votes of Nader's constituency. Instead we get the arrogant and elitist "You have to vote Democrat, you don't have a choice." Sorry folks, we do have a choice. Reagan built an inclusive Republican coalition. Democrats amazingly, 28 years later, still opt for exclusion.

     Posted by quercus269 at 02/28/2008 @ 3:57pm

217. i won't vote for the Dems. i don't think anybody should vote for them. you voted for them in '06, 'impeachment off the table' first thing outta their mouths. how can you vote for that? and you wanna trash Nader. remember who Gore's running mate was? that's the D party. how can you vote for that? who stood up for recount in Ohio in '04? not the D's! not Kerry/Edwards! the effin G's. how can you vote for that?? it's too simple for all you educated sophisticated satirists. DON'T VOTE FOR SHIT!

     Posted by drydaveh at 03/01/2008 @ 7:13pm

218. To the last three comments: (Antiliar, Quercus, Drydaven) All I can say is HEAR, HEAR! Glad to see the Nation still retains some intelligent readers who won't be scared by those who maintain the absurd notion that the vote is in any way legit.

     Quoting Antillar:

     "it goes beyond computerized voting machines. Voter caging, voter registration suppression and sabotage, manipulation of the media message machine, rigged allocation of election resources (polling place allocation based on likely liberal voter districts), covert or overt collusion of local law enforcement in suppressing the vote, widespread collusion of local secretaries of state and elections officials, not counting provisional ballots (or rigging the process)... it goes on and on. Both of the last two elections were stolen every which way but straight. Ralph Nader's effect didn't amount to a hill of beans in either case. So making the bogus argument about Nader's purported threat is simply stupid (or ignorant), and really just playing DEFENSIVE POLITICS. When are we going to grow a pair and stop acting like such politically clueless wimps"

     Regarding the Neocon vote-rigging schemes I suspect it gets worse. If anyone actually does threaten the foregone conclusion of the botch 3rd term in the form of McBomb, consider again what happened to the excellent Mr. Paul Wellstone and family for resisting the brilliantly deranged neocon coup.

     (see: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2497562773635770276&q )

     I suspect there is more to the complete complicity of the democrats with this neocon agenda than meets the eye. I do so detest this needing to answer things with conspiracy theories, but the inexplicably bizarre collusion by the democrats with the war, and their failure to uphold impeachment and the rule of law leaves us little option but conjecture:

     1: Why did Kerry concede (Recalling those excellent questions Kerry was being asked during the "Don't taze Me Bro" [video.google.com] Vid)?

     2: Why really did Impeachment get taken off the table, and more importantly how could it be that Conyers, a former impeachment advocate, abruptly abandoned the effort, despite all those letters, calls, signatures and public opinion polls? Not even those close to him have any possible clue (and don't buy the Pelosi story, impeachment would have coalesced and empowered the democrats, crushed the GOP, and taking it off the table disarmed us into a cynical mass of spineless defeatism, what few still believed).

     3: What really happened to Congressman Kucinich's 90-count impeachment bill against Botch, and did its disappearance have anything to do with the mysterious death of his brother? (OK, regardless of whether item #3 above is reasonable or not to include…),

     it could very well be that we're all getting exercised for nothing, because the neocon cult seems to have already won through some impregnable arsenal of mega-churched believers, endless corporate MIC capital, ownership of public ‘opinion' via fox news, and suspect inaction by the democrats to stop the red-state disease, in addition to the vote-rigging Antillar mentions.

     The election is likely thrown, the resistance has been mysteriously derailed, the war has evaporated from the press and from the election debate, and nobody is talking about any accountability of these clearly criminal neocons, who have blatantly broken a massive number of laws both domestic and international, and yet, like Kissinger, will likely not only face no music for their genocide whatsoever, but they will likely continue in office in one form or another, laughing all the way, as anyone busted will be pardoned, etc.

     We don't even need to raise the specter of the mysterious collapse of WTC #7, (and surely the Nation in its effort to buy a seat at the table of the establishment would delete this post over that).

     Activism in opposition to the antics of this administration categorically failed to materialize, and what did went wholly ignored. There is no mass revolt against the neocons, and their surrogate, Mcbomb, is hardly suffering under the threat of any landslide for democrats.

     If public opinion is again so devoid of outrage, then there really is nothing to fight about, the nation as a democracy is doomed, and the people already accept the farce of elections as real.

     All of this is highly suspicious. Either the US electorate is simply stupid (likely), or the neocons are pulling strings (also likely) or both. In the end, it appears resistance is not only futile, it's nonexistent. Even your candidate, as well as Shillary support the bizarre militarism of the neocons, even to the point of supporting Blackwater:

     (See "Obama & Clinton Both Support Blackwater" at Dandelion Salad: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/ obama-clinton-both-support-blackwater-videos/)

     Both dems are unapologetic hawks, or at least they feel compelled to present themselves as such to curry favor with a suspiciously anti-peace electorate.

     In any case, surely Ms Vandenheuvel knows full well that the McBomb machine will eat Barack alive. If Kerry, a trained killer with a zillion years in office, and Gore, a former VP couldn't contest the neocons with a similarly divided electorate, then what gives the Nation the idea that Barack can or will?

     She gets me thinking again about cointelpro, and the manipulation of the resistance by meddling with their organizations from within…

     A call by 'progressives' to keep ANY progressive ideas out of this debate, which is already so brazenly devoid of progressive ideas, only reinforces a suspicion that something very, very strange is afoot in the electoral process, and especially in this ‘shaping' of public opinion by the press.

     With all that in mind, why not let a brave soul like Nader stand up for what we all know we believe in? If he's willing to face getting 'Wellstoned' over his faith in the integrity of the democratic process when both Kerry and Gore bailed under these very same stooges, why not give him some support?

     Once again, Nader's statistical impact on the 2004 vote was 0.03%, or virtually nil. If you are fighting against Nader participating, you are fighting not any votes he might steel, you are instead fighting against including progressive ideas in the electoral debate, which means the Nation has some ‘splainin' to do!

     With Kucinich under attack, & good man Gravel getting ignored into oblivion, Ralph Nader's 2008 campaign is likely the very last gasp of the anti-war progressive effort in this land, before the book finally closes on democracy in the USA. If he's willing to risk life and limb to represent that which we all believe in, let him, in fact support him.

     You know as well as I that the democratic process is dead, and Obama will be wholly unable to beat McBomb, it's not even worth getting exercised about anymore.

     We waste years of our lives believing "if only Gore had done this, or Kerry had that, or Nader hadn't run" we would not be in an orwellioan war to benefit oil interests, etc.

     But in fact, those elections were so close for a reason, and those concessions by Gore and Kerry were given for a reason, and the reason is that apparently the Neocons, through some sort of back-stage manipulation and control, and likely threats, graft and even assassinations, etc. own this country.

     We the people gave it to them, we the people are to blame. WE let it happen. But the progressives didn't do this through apathy alone, the red-state rednecks who live in their mega-churches and worship WtF Buckley and raygun, provided the vast electoral fodder.

     The electorate of the heartland are goners, lifers, completely deranged, never to be rehabilitated, Just look at McBombs popular support despite the illegal hell the GOP inflicted on the nation and the world--it's uncanny!

     It's like there's a mass hypnosis going on for decades now, and those VERY few who see it are the exception, and we can never again truly win the popular vote. The resistance, while once popular even a couple of years ago, was crushed from within by the corruption of the Democrats.

     This populace will all just have to die off before anything ever changes. No amount of deranged, brain-damaged, de-limbed Iraq war vets will convince the idiotic red-staters of the corruption of their ways--they are brain-dead, blue-pill believers, and will remain fully, completely hypnotized until the day they die.

     If you want to save others from our clearly permanent policy of illegal militaristic atrocity, try convincing the enlisted military cultists of their responsibilities to refuse immoral or illegal orders, for without them, Rummy would have stood alone

     (good luck, trying to reform enlisted militaristic goons is likely impossible, they kill because the LIKE to kill, like playing video games with real ammo-- the volunteer military selects for sociopaths, might as well be a buncha deranged sport-hunters).

     Posted by Giordano Rios at 03/01/2008 @ 9:44pm