Seems really weird. 10 years ago? Both deny the allegations?

What's the point to this? I just don't see it. I can see how it can imply things, but without any hard facts it's a bit weak on how it matters.

This is all he and Coulter, OReily, etc do. They cherry pick and twist facts with no recollection of the past except when it benefits them.

I guess this is what pundits like him are though. Political Entertainment. Surprised I still even pay attention :

After being such a blatant Hillary supporter while trying to act unbiased, you actually realize that she's not going to win.

I think the last statement was exactly that for her. She knew she didn't do it. She didn't get what she needed done in any way whatsoever. She shook his hand and said, ok, I'll play nice now. For me, that handshake was the exact moment when you could see the end of her campaign.

The next "debate" will be a snorefest because Hillary knows the race is over and it won't do the party any good to dig at Obama like she has been. To her credit though, she really had no other options left for Wisconsin.

Time to all stop nitpicking Obama and do what we can to support him against McCain.

He keeps talking like he needs to bring attention to the problem of corporate greed, but he is more marginalized than ever. He is a footnote in American politics now. If he does do this, it's just a publicity stunt to try and gain some of his long lost popularity.

The chapter has been written and printed on Nader's legacy. He should know that and just be happy with what he's contributed to society.

"Cutting the huge, bloated and wasteful military budget, adopting a single payer Canadian-style national health insurance system, impeaching Bush/Cheney, opposing nuclear power -- among many others"

Impeaching the president is a waste of time and money. That would hurt progressive causes more than you ever think.

Additionally, I'd rather Nader wouldn't get up with his idealized misinformed opinion of Nuclear power. I'm so sick of people being against something that they have little understanding of.

But then again, Nader doesn't have a national platform to speak of so the left-wing will just have to resort to fringe blogs to get their "message" out.

His "lynching" comment was 100x's worse than this and he didn't even bother to apologize using his standard "it's the context" crap.

Seriously? Pimped out is somehow so bad yet this goes largely unnoticed?

I don't care if you call people out for saying things like Shuster did but there really needs to be some consistency in the Media. People that complain about MSNBC need to hold the same standards for FoxNews and CNN as well.

I couldn't watch more than 2 episodes of that garbage. Even the previews suck. I'm surprised that show made a second season. You basically said it. Horrible jokes, really bad acting, no emotion, etc.

Maybe Cox is just suffering from 'Friends Disease' still. Too bad really.

I don't understand the Clinton Campaign. They talk like they know someone from their camp put it out, but yet deny it so vehemently that you have to ask why.

Why didn't they just say it's bad taste and blame the republicans or right wing blogs or something. Would have been easier, still had the same effect (putting Obama in a negative light), and would have made you look good.

Regardless of whether you sent it out or not, you should have taken the high road here. By not, it looks like you are hiding something...regardless if it's true or not. People forget perception is all that ever really matters. The truth is secondary.

I don't buy your argument by any stretch of your apparently limitless imagination.

It was clear that she was trying to get a free shot and Obama handled it well. One of his best responses in the debate.

Yeah, I'm not so happy about Russert. It's difficult to be objective when you are so aggressive with your participants.

she would have run away with the debate. It clearly was a complaint by her campaign and supporters.

Pretty sad on the SNL line, glad it was booed. Seems like she can't get a good jab in at all. Xerox anyone? :p

If she wins Ohio and loses Texas, which will probably happen, then I think she can leave gracefully and look good at the same time. She can show that she put up a good fight and that fight was justified by Ohio.

There is no reason to get out 5 days before a vote that you've fought so hard for. She'd look like a quitter and someone that goes down easy when in a fight. That's not something you want to live with in the Senate.

...I'm pulling my support.

So, then, why does Nader deserve such special media treatment? Why doesn't the Libertarian Party merit the same treatment he enjoys, based on 2004 results? If the Libertarians are deemed irrelevant and undeserving, why isn't Nader too?

Just asking

It's because media organizations are not trying to be fair. They are trying to get ratings. People know who Ralph Nader is. He was a consumer advocate and got 2.4% of the vote in 2004. Who is the libertarian candidate? I don't know. I'd have to google it just to find out.

It's all about ratings. It's a story. It's no different than reporting that Clinton answered briefs over boxers. Whatever gets the public stuck to their TV watching commercials is ultimately what trumps any news story. All media organizations only care about objective report to the extent it doesn't interfere with advertising revenue. It's just the nature of the beast.

One thing is for sure about this announcement though, we won't hear anything else about Nader until November unless he has a serious health issue or something.

Great news!