Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nader Ponders Run, Calls Clinton 'Coward'
Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters.
"You know the two parties are still converging -- they don't even debate the military budget anymore," Nader said in a 30-minute interview. "I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties."
Even the possible entry of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race as an independent might not dissuade Nader.
"He is interesting (but) unpredictable," Nader said of Bloomberg. "I really like the stand he took against smoking, but he goes along with corporate welfare in New York and tax-funded stadiums. So he is unfinished in that way."
Nader would have little or no chance of winning the presidency should he run, but he doesn't need to win to affect the outcome: Many Democrats still blame Nader for draining enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida in 2000 to elect George W. Bush.
And while Nader, 73, realizes he might once again be accused of being a "spoiler" candidate, he says the Democrats could win in 2008, unless they spoil things for themselves.
"Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans," Nader said. "Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic."
While Nader praised two candidates who have almost no chance of winning their party's nomination -- Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel -- he was severe in his criticism of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
"She is a political coward," Nader said. "She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn't even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband."
Chris Lehane, who worked in Bill Clinton's White House and Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said of a possible Nader candidacy: "His entry into the race, even to those who voted for him in 2000, would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself at the expense of the best interests of the public. Ralph Nader is unsafe in any election."
Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed," on the deficiencies of American automobiles, catapulted him to national fame in 1965. Since then, he has authored several more books, founded dozens of consumer-interest organizations, run for president three times, hosted "Saturday Night Live," appeared on "Sesame Street" and was a character on "The Simpsons."
He has, in other words, considerable name recognition and is an experienced organizer.
And when I asked him if he saw any major candidate in any party forestalling his own run for president in 2008, he replied, "Very unlikely. Very unlikely. The requirement is almost logistical. It requires tens of thousands of volunteers."
The volunteers are needed, Nader says, to gather signatures to get his name on the ballot in the 50 states, an arduous and expensive proposition. Nader also said he would need a "network of pro-bono lawyers to fight for ballot access."
Nader admits that Mayor Bloomberg's wealth could make it far easier for him to get ballot access. "A multibillionaire like Bloomberg could immediately turn it into a three-cornered race," Nader said.
If Nader runs, he would emphasize the "ever-increasing corporate power in our society" and "the expanding disconnect between the growth of the economy and the distribution to people who work hard but don't get the fruits of it."
Nader also believes the United States should withdraw from Iraq over a six-month period, have the United Nations sponsor new elections and leave no U.S. forces behind.
In Nader's scenario, the "bottom falls out of the insurgency, the U.S. brings the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis together, and all you are left with are criminal gangs, and criminal gangs can be dealt with."
When Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000, he got only 2.74 percent of the popular vote. But in Florida, Nader's votes may have been critical. Gore ended up losing the election to Bush by 537 votes in Florida, a state where Nader got 97,448 votes. Many believe that had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have gotten thousands of those votes and become president.
Nader is unrepentant, though he says people still stop him on the street to berate him about it.
When they do, Nader tells them: "Why don't you blame the thieves? Why don't you blame Tallahassee and the Supreme Court? Bush's people stole the election!"
Nader calls the attacks on him "political bigotry."
"What was our crime? We used our constitutional rights to run," he said. "We had proposals that if Gore had picked up on, he would have landslided Bush."
Among the proposals, Nader said, was a "living wage, cracking down on corporate crime against consumers and pensions, not to mention an authentic health insurance agenda."
Nader says, however, that he and Gore have patched things up.
"Yeah, he is very friendly," Nader said. "You wouldn't believe what he wrote when he autographed his book ('An Inconvenient Truth') to me when I stood in line at the bookstore. It was like, 'To my good friend, with great respect.'"
Nader says that if they don't implode, the Democrats are very likely to win the presidency and retain control of Congress in 2008.
So why would he run at all?
"What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people," he said. "And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."
© 2007 Politico.com



128 Comments so far
Show AllFantastic news!
I love how Nader sticks to his commitment to reveal what is really wrong with our corporate dominated political system. He is a man of integrity and is determined to MAKE Americans aware of how they are being duped day after day by Washington politics. No one in the Dem and certainly the Repub parties are ever going to do that! (I wonder why?)
Go for it Nader! What do any of us have to lose at this point?
Oh please Dems, don't even go there. That argument is old and worn out and never did hold water.
It must be vexing to the Democrats that 3rd party candidates, willing to earn the Left's vote, continue to run for office. Galling, because they (falsely) believe they own those votes and can take those constituents for granted.
Run Ralph run!
But you better get good security knowing how mentally ill the Demfascists are.
"When they do, Nader tells them: "Why don't you blame the thieves? Why don't you blame Tallahassee and the Supreme Court?"
**because they are stupid Ralph.
Just stupid.
bush clinton, bush clinton
what is this the end of the world?
Hillary is a power hungry bitch. Why are people supporting her? Are people getting smarter or dumber? Turn that TV off it's worse then CIA imported Heroin.
Remember when Michael Moore ran a shrub for political office and people copied him and did it all over the country. Maybe there should be a massive no vote initiative. If the vote can truly be hacked then we have no say anyway and the corporations win. If the vote isn't hacked then the electoral college will let the corporations win.
How do the people win?
We can't put a candidate in through the primary process cause the corporations have seen to it that only the shit candidates with the most money make it in. The Bush's and Clinton's thats the new royalty.
Still think there are two political parties?
There is only one, the global corporate party. Enjoy! Here's a shit sandwich take a bite.
It would be great to have Nader in the debates, just as it's great to have Kucinich and Gravel in the Democratic debates.
Nader has accomplished many great things, not least among them is his relentless campaign to bring "corporate welfare" into the political conversation. In 2004, all the candidates for the Democratic nomination came out in opposition to corporate welfare, thanks primarily to Nader's efforts.
Of course, if Nader is allowed to debate there's a good chance he could win. That's why the Dims won't allow him to debate.
Why not an All-American, bipartisan three-cornered hat-in-the-ring ticket: Kucinich, Paul and Nader as attorney general, in any event?
ToeBot: The US is beyond left vs. right. We simply need a peaceful & honest government at this point. Call it left, right, up, down, center, in, out, whatever.
Perhaps, he should run as John Edwards running mate.
Edwards could never win now because of his positioning in the last race. But, with Nader as a vice president, it might work.
You see, in this way, Nader could actually "raid" the Democratic party. Edwards could really start to shake things up a bit, get some depth into his image.
The thing that is good about Edwards is that he represents trial lawyers who represent poor or disadvantaged clients against corporate interests.
It is the law and the legal profession that is really under siege by todays socalled compassionate conservatism and corporate malfeasance.
Bob K:
Boy, did you hit that one right!!!
"Of course, if Nader is allowed to debate there's a good chance he could win. That's why the Dims won't allow him to debate."
They tried so hard to shut him up in 2000. I remember when he filled Madison Square Garden with wildly enthusiastic cheering supporters. The Dems must have realized then that he wasn't just some befuddled nerd. So when their corportate candidate self destructed in 2000, they did the only thing dirty politics could expect. They pointed the finger at Nader to deflect their own shortcomings from their base and insure that no one with an intelligent message for the people would ever challenge them again.
Then in 2004, they were ready and waiting. As an independent, he was challenged by the fearless Dems in EVERY state where he attempted to get ballot access. They used every means in the book short of criminal acts to erase him as a choice for the American people. As far as Nader being allowed access to national debates...guess who stepped in to see that he wasn't invited! I have NO time for the Dems. But I have all the respect I can muster for Nader!
Go Nader! Stick it to 'em!
NADER/KUCINICH '08!
Can they start a new party? What would they call it? The time is ripe.
Just dreamin'...
By the way, Nader looks like he's really been living right- 73? Unbelievable.
Some people (think "Cheney") could sure take some pointers from him. Or maybe it's a soul thang.
I think Kucinich would need to be "less" corporate and willing to break away from his corporate party if Nader were to hook up with him. But, it's a good dream.
Nader and Kucinich talked in 2004 when Nader was considering getting into the fray as an independent. Kucinich didn't want to go independent. Maybe this time the conversation would have a different outcome.
You will need more than a third party to stop the damage being done to America. You need a new system. Not a system that produces and then tolerates the likes of our White House today. You need a system that isn't run on money and influence, but on honesty and compassion. You need completely new ideas, not new ways to solve our current problems. You need Statesmen, not more politicians.
Hoa binh
I've posted this elsewhere, but I am hoping for a Green ticket of Al Gore and Ralph Nader. Once Al gets rid of his corporate sponsors he should be able to speak freely and pick up the issues Nader is talking about.
To hear what he wrote when he signed Nader's copy of the book, encouraging!!!
The Democratic Party is in sorry mode, bowing to corporate interests on a routine basis. It is funny to hear Hillary during the debate say..."Look at us and the republicans, what a difference!!" The reality is the only difference between them is that the republicans are not lying about their intentions to be aggressive in empire, serve the needs of business, and turn the other way on corporate crime. Meanwhile, mainstream Dems continue to think they have to mimmick this behavior to get elected.
Vote Nader!
Go Ralph!
If he has just one thing that other major candidates lack, it's principles. I voted for him twice, and will again if he runs. And if it ends up as another "Tweedledum-Tweedledee election," I probably won't vote, because I've lost hope for America, and have left for a more hopeful place.
namvet:
I agree with your argument that a new system is needed, not just good intentioned politicians plopped into the cesspool of Washington.
But I would hope you also agree that we are running out of time. Changing the system whether from within or outside would be a slow process, hindered continually by those that it would displace.
Placing a man like Nader at the head of a charge for change by working through the existing electoral system now would at least give us a fighting chance.
Thank God I can now finally vote for someone. Was worried I was going to have to forgo voting all together.
After the election in 2000, Ralph Nader spoke about how proud he was to have helped build the third largest party in America, the Green Party. He had come up with a really intriguing proposal during the campaign... If each member of the party committeed 100 hours and $100 bucks, then we could build a major, third, progressive party in America. He also proposed that the party should try to build momentum by winning local elections first, to gather strength and raise expectations in the long haul. These were welcome ideas. Unstinting progressive unity is the only means by which progressives in America can get beyond the powerlessness we all experience in this two-wings-of-the-one-business-party state. But then in 2004, Nader, who had never officially joined the Green Party, decided to run once more as an independent. To heck with that; I voted for David Cobb. And I will vote for Cynthia McKinney or whoever takes the Green Party nomination in 2008, because much as I admire Nader, and much as I think he would make an excellent President, as a Green I feel he dumped me in 2004. If Ralph is going to go around stressing the need for "third parties," then he should commit to one. His excuse that he has "always been an independent" doesn't wash with the proposals he made in 2000 for what "we" Greens ought to do to build our party. Granted, Ralph's personal network was what gave the Green Party in 2000 a major injection of energy and some political savvy that had been lacking. Granted that the Green Party has major internal issues that need to be sorted out... But what Ralph did in 2004 and is thinking of doing in 2008 only hurts the party he once helped by fragmenting the progressive vote. In particular, it hurts the Green Party's struggle to get ballot access in all 50 states and to meet minimum voting percentages to get state and federal recognition. Finally, Ralph's personal network is not a "third party" and won't be there for the rest of us in the long haul. (Hopefully) none of us progressives love the party sytem, but without a vehicle to get us there, we're never going to make some serious inroads into Congress and state legislatures. And that means leaving foreign policy, global warming, health care, Katrina, etc. etc. firmly in the hands of the two-party cronies who are presently parcellizing our country and selling it off to private interests. It's great to have Ralph's talking points in the race. But Kucinich does a good job there too, and they even let him in on the debates. The difference is; after Kucinich fails to win the nomination, he won't be costing any "third parties" any votes. But then there is the nagging question: are progressives in America even capable of achieving the kind of discipline and unity necessary to be an actual political force, or are most of us really more interested in being armchair critics, hooting on our occasional heroes to electoral defeat?
Now is a good time to go to www.anunreasonableman.com/ and order a copy to pass around. It is now a 2-DVD set. The film itself is fairly balanced and his harshest critics get their say. That said, even people who think they know a lot about his history of accomplishments will probably be surprized, as I was, that there is so much more to learn about his family life, his personal activism, the federal agencies that owe their existance to him and the public interest groups he has founded, as well as all the legislation he is directly responsible for.
The second DVD has some really good interviews and sections about Ralph's alleged "egomania," third-party politics, what kind of president Nader would be, etc. The years since 2004 have made Nader's critiques of the healthcare industry, the situation in Iraq, corporate crime, and the state of the Democratic Party seem REALLY prescient.
I can't recommend this DVD set too much. Show it to the Nader-haters you know and they may have a change of heart when they compare his encyclopedic knowledge and deep grasp of such a wide variety of subjects and details--not to mention his seemingly boundless energy and enthusiasm-- to the current crop of presidential hopefuls.
Go Ralph go! I voted for him before, and I'd do it again. I'm a life-long Democrat, but I decided some time back I wasn't being represented by them anymore, and I will write in a third party independent or Green before 'choosing the lesser of two evils'--there's really only one evil, and it's our current political system and corporate-owned gummint.
And if we could get the damn Electoral College system tossed out and have direct voting--our votes might even count! (assuming they aren't tossed out or the election isn't stolen again.)I'm such a dreamer...
"Nader would have little or no chance of winning the presidency should he run..."
I really wish I knew if people get paid to knock these anti-corporate candidates down. Even supposedly well meaning journalists always fall trap to this type of statement. Makes me wonder how well meaning they really are. America and the world need economic solutions other than infectious capitalism, Nader would be a good choice to lead us to a saner, better world.
Yea...Ralph!!! You know what a hero is? It is someone who has a record of environmental, economic and social justice wins for the public good and the determination and strength to endure betrayal of supposed "friends" and to offer the voting public an alternative to any kind of "evil" in an election!
I will work for you again as I did in 2004! I had a blast as a "corporate crimebuster"!!! Thanks for caring, Ralph!!!
IF Nader were ever elected President running on a third party ticket the results would be total chaos in Congress. Nader might have a mandate but we see what "mandates" are worth when looking at the stalemate in Congress now. Neither side of the isle would be interested in working with "a radical" like Nader. If Nader could be VP on the Democratic ticket that might work.
"Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match":
Yeah, I'd love to vote for Ralph Nader. Go Ralph! He's the only candidate who could inspire me to pull the lever of the voting slot machine (Joseph Stalin quote: "It's not the voters who have power. It's the people who count the votes that have the power.")
Yeah, I'd gladly vote for Ralph Nader. Ralph needs a to find a proper running mate. This is because the job description requires a possible replacement.
Here are some of the people whom I have heard of who could possibly be running mates: Senator Leahy from Vermont.
Edwards as Vice President to Nader for president ( reverse of my earlier Democrat party raid scenario).
Chuck Hagel as Vice President to Nader Presidential ticket: Hagel would be a sort of reverse Cheney manager, fixing what the great albino primate has destroyed at the Pentagon. This ticket would appeal to Americans. Hagel would provide the keel and Nader the sail for democratic renewal.
Tee Shirt Idea:
I LIKE RALPH.
NADER FOR PRES' 2008
If the American people knew how capable and experienced and altruistic and witty and bright and healthy Mr Nader is, they would understand why most of the previous comments seem so enthusiastic. In my opinion there has never been a more qualified person to be President of the United States than Mr Nader.
Drex: You must be one of those progressive Dem "hangers-on", dreaming that Nader would ever think of playing footsie with the Dem Party let alone run second fiddle on their corporate ticket!
a-z:
You were right...to a point. Nader approached the Greens in 2004 BEFORE he decided to run as an independent. He felt that the Greens needed to start operating as a real political force and run their own grassroots driven ticket instead of relying once again on him to lead the way. In a way, I can see what he was trying to do...wean a young party off his, well, teet if I may.
But to curse him for dissing your Greens in 2004 is a bit unfair. In fact the entire California State green delegation went as a block for Nader during the Greens' nomination process. Many other Green state delagations were split. The fact remains that if you liked what he stood for (and continues to work towards) you could still have voted for all Green local and state candidates and voted for Nader for president in 2004. A vote for the Green candidate Cobb was really a political throw away since he ran on a wimpy "safe states" strategy! That "safe states" strategy of protecting the corporate Dem candidate did more to damage the Green Party than Nader ever did.
The last two elections were stolen so I don't see where voting is of much use until we make the elections honest. However, I'll still make the effort and vote for Nader - again!
This just made my day! I don't like the part about him doubting he will be elected. He needs volunteers? Where do I sign up?
We need to get the US to know who he is. There are alot of voters who were born after his greatest accomplishments that don't know who he is. These are the ones we need to reach. Any ideas? The MSM isn't going to help us, so we have to do something so newsworthy that they can't ignore us.
I live in FL and I didn't hear much about him until right before the election in 2000.
Thanks Mr. Nader!!!!
Nader4Prez:
Ever hear of YouTube??? Excellent way to reach the younger crowd with Nader's message...just don't have Ralph do the talking please.
I wish he would just throw his support behind
RON PAUL!!!
Ron Paul is doing tremendously in the debate polls and online polls. He's huge on youtube and myspace. Please go learn more about Dr. NO and urge Nadar to support him. We have yet to reach that critical 5%-of-votes-for-a-third-party marker! We need some solidarity!
Anybody besides Hillary. If she was so stupid to believe the lies and vote for war, how in hell will she ever be able to recognize the truth as president? She's just another personal power hungry yakker with no principles. Why could I see the disaster in going to war, but she and almost all the dummies in Congress coudn't? They should all be thrown out.
Ron Paul is a corporatist. Nader is not and fights against corporate control of our lives. Nader has a proven track record of fighting for the "little guy". Ron Paul... well, is a corporate loving congressman. There's no match.
honeybee, why would you end your comments with "We need some solidarity!" when you blow off the only non-corporatist contemplating carrying our progressive message into the presidential arena?
You're right, we DO need solidarity. Learn about Nader. Ron Paul will be gone after the Repubs convention, maybe even before that.
Ralph Nader is appearing on CNN tonight at 5PM est.
I'm one of the people who blame Nader for Bush winning in 2000. I don't think I'm stupid, lol. Here's the thing: we live in the real world. In the real world, 3rd party candidates don't win US presidential elections. There's not much difference here than thinking that if your elementary school could only get into the NCAA college basketball tournament, they'd have a good shot at winning.
If you want to change things, change the electoral system. Change the US primary system. Work for something that will actually have a positive result.
In my blog, I joked that George Bush is getting a divorce from Reality after a long trial separation. Well, he's not the only one.
http://ibrakefortrees.wordpress.com
Nader "foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election"? In 2000, was Bush "Tweedledum" and Gore "Tweedledee"? If he can't see any difference between the two, between how the world would look if he hadn't run in 2000 and the horror that it is today, or between the likely Republican nominees and the likely Democratic nominees, he's blind or delusional.
I'm fully willing to blame the Republican election thieves, but Nader must accept that he was an aider and abetter. What a disgrace this man has turned out to be.
good points newageartist a to z, the nomination process happened in my home town, Milwaukee, and Nader finished second to Cobb. The guts of the party is also based here and the feeling was that if he wouldn't join the party they wouldn't nominate him. Big mistake on the part of the Green Party because Cobb made his intentions known that he would not run in so-called swing states. And looking back did he really run anywhere? The Green party is a lot of things but they are still not very good at politics, or American style politics anyway.
I brake for trees- do you think Nader was running to win or to do all the things you listed to create change? The Dems and especially Gore weren't listening so Nader did the only thing he could. He gave progressives who were fed up a voice. A way to try and get Dems back in line with the principles most of us grew up thinking they stood for by hitting them in the only place they cared about- the ballot box. It was brilliant! You see people are still talking about it. The only problem is that seemingly good people like yourself still don't get it.
If he runs, I hope that he tries to secure the Green Party's nomination. I voted for him in 2004.
Nader Gravel '08!
I like Nader and would vote for him. I've heard him speak, and he's an intelligent man. I've had it with the Democrats. It's all talk and no action from these politicians -- blah blah blah. They need to get real jobs where they actually earn their pay.
I'll vote for Nader. All of the Democrat front runners are in the pocket of AIPAC--which means that the Iraq war will continue (Hillary as much as said so), the Palestinian conflict will continue, and there will be no peace in the Middle East. Hillary will not be in favor of single-payer health care, and she is horrendous on labor issues. Listen closely to her, and it's clear that we'll be in Iraq for 50 years and never get health care passed with her as president. Go Nader!
Whooo-Hoooo!!!!!
Run Ralph Run!!!!
I'll vote for you. I'll volunteer for your campaign. I'll donate what I can.
I'll do none of the above for ANY candidate that runs as a Democrat. That is a party of liars and con-men and I'm sick and tired of the Democrats. When I see a (D) on the ballot after a candidates name, I'll assume they are a lying scumbag that won't do anything that they've said in the campaign while in office.
Run, Ralph, Run!!!!!
Having just attended the conference "Taming the Giant Corporation," held in Washington DC, I have once again had the pleasure of directly witnessing Ralph Nader address the relevant issues of our time, along with his ability to draw the best of talent and commitment from fellow activists joined in the struggle against corporate fascism. I am convinced that we need to take back democracy from the control of the Demicrans and the Republicrats in service to business as usual. I have no problem with Ralph Nader exercising his civic responsibility and choosing to run for President. He stands on principle and exercises the courage of his convictions, even in the face of those who are shamefully compromised and morally corrupt.
BTW, to the Democrats on the list. I think it was 90,000 some odd votes for Nader in Florida in 2000. It was something like hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. It wasn't Nader that cost Gore the election, it was the Democrats who voted for Bush.
And if Gore wasn't yet another spineless Dem who collapse at the first pressure from the Republicans, he'd still have been President. All he had to do was to take the decent and honest stance from the beginning that all votes in Florida should be recounted to know the will of the voters.
And yes, Gore and Bush are still very similar. Gore implemented the corporate economy that is crushing Americans today as our jobs go overseas. Gore's foreign policy was one of violent and illegal war's around the world (see Yugoslavia) and the support of terrorists (see Colombia). Gore would have attacked Afghanistan. And being the right-wing militarist that Gore's always been as a Rep and a Senator and as a part of the Clinton\Gore admin, I don't think he'd have withstood the right-wing and media pressure to attack Iraq. Yes, I think if Gore was in office we'd still have attacked Iraq.
Gawd, can't people learn? Haven't we just seen all this year that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. We've seen the Democrats do nothing to change Bush tax or trade policy. We've seen the Democrats fully fund and support the Iraq war from its beginnings and up through this year's budget bills. We've seen a Democratic majority in the Congress do nothing to stop or even slow down the Republican agenda. Just one example of many was all the Dems who voted that Americans can't buy cheaper meds from overseas. Just like the Repubs, when big pharma talks, the Dems jump!
Does everyone forget who Gore picked as VP in 2000? He picked Leiberman for christ's sake. And that's not an aberation. Gore was one of the founders of the DLC and his 1988 Presidential run was the first attempt of the DLC to flex its muscles.
Gore wrote a book about the environment once before. Then he didn't do crap for the environment during 8 years of being VP. Yeah, tell me the VP is powerless after 7 years of Cheney. Right!
Quit drinking the Democratic kool-aid. Why do Democrats keep supporting pro-war, pro-corporate candidates and then act surprised when they govern pro-war and pro-corporate. Remember, both NAFTA and WTO are DEMOCRATIC creations. Both only passed because of the support of a DEMOCRATIC president and the Democrats in Congress who voted with their President. And please, you can search for ages and you won't find anything from Gore opposing these acts. He was one of the main pushers for them instead.
Christ .. Gore has been a right-wing, pro-military, pro-corporate political figure his entire time in public office. Why on earth does everyone keep pretending he's anything different. Watch what Democrats do, not what they say. And Gore has a 30 year record of what he does.
The USA is only a two party system because most Americans are too lazy to think beyond, Eenie-Meenie..they like their choices clear, unambigious and in black and white, with no annoying shades of grey.
good or bad
black or white
corporate or labor
muslim or christian
cowboy or indian
communist or capitalist
heads or tails
life or death
Turn that TV off it's worse then CIA imported Heroin......
Watch MSM and you will get the same...
LIES.....LIES.....LIES.....LIES.....LIES.....
Gore is older and wiser lets hope. Lieberman was to catch the Jewish, conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans that might shake loose from the party vote. Lieberman was there as a strategy nothing more or less. If Gore were to run now we would need to look at who he might choose as a running mate this time.
I think Nader is one of the brightest and best but has no chance in hell to win a Presidential election or even influence the so called "debate".
Gore and Edwards are not perfect but they have an outside chance of winning and influencing the parities Presidential platform. Nader's only has a chance to syphon votes from other Democratic candidates. As I said above and repeat here, even in the unlikely event Nader won the Presidency he would have no party behind him, no one on either side of the isle would have any reason to be loyal to him-chaos, stagnation.
This guy is DOA so get of the bandwagon and be realistic
How can people ignore the fact that Ralph Nader helped get George and Dick into the White House? Al Gore would have been a worst choice? I don't think so!!
All you posters, hold your horses, and don't get overly excited about the 08 elections with or without Mr Nader. Aren't you forgetting something?
Bush may attack Iran, declare a state of emergency at home to prevent a nationwide uprising, and there won't be an election until King George II, the Decider guy, decides when you can have an election, when you can eat, and when you can go to the toilet, if Cheney approves, that is. Oh, what a day it will be. The chicken are coming home to roost.
Run! Ralph! Run! before Blackwater mercenaries could catch and put you in the new detention center built by Halliburton.
Go for it... teach those GOP and DEM corporate suck-ups a lesson that they will never forget. It's time we kicked all of them out of office and took back the government: reduce military spending 5% each year for the next 10 years; abolish the CIA; abolish the Federal Reserve debt-based currency system; abolish the electoral college; cap money that can be spent on, or given to political campaigns and absolutely outlaw corporate financial involvement in the political process; dismantle mega-media conglomerates; keep religion out of government and vice-versa; abolish all taxes on labor; establish a VAT based tax system. Yes, Ralph YOU can do it! from Marblehead, MA
Nader going to put another Republican in the White House like he did Bush in 2000? Nader should hide under a rock somewhere considering his responsibility in subjecting the world to the horrors of the past seven years.