It's amusing to see Democrats go into fits over Ralph Nader. He's done more for the people of this country than any of them. But then party interests always trump the interests of the citizens. Who else is going to point out how the one business party with the two squabbling factions have rigged the electoral process to keep out competition? Note that a few months ago Congress voted $50 million of our money for each of the conventions. Conflict of interest? No, business as usual. Will the Democrats raise the issue of corporate ownership of Congress? Not while they all have their snouts in the trough. I disagree with Ralph on many things but I find his primary focus on returning the political process to the citizens worth my vote, especially in this sea of mediocrity. Revile him all you want, he's a pearl among the swine and continues to be a National Treasure.

Two things. First, the movie, "American Blackout," (google for the web site) documents the Republican voter disenfranchisement of African American voters in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. The movie also shows the lack of media attention given to the issue, which was also part of the plan. Second, at least here in Oregon, Ralph Nader brought many to the polls who otherwise would not have voted. That gave a strong push in State and local elections for Democrats. Yes, if it looks like a close election I will vote for the Democrat while holding my nose. But neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton are coming to grips with many of the most urgent issues. There needs to be someone from the outside to keep topics in the media that the Democrats do not wish to discuss.

Hey I admit that the total responsibility for the success or failure of the 2000 Gore campaign rests solely on Gore. He ran a spineless mealymouthed campaign.

In 2000, I could have easily voted for Nader if it wasn't a close election, but I was going to trade my idealogical purity to let George W be president. The differences between Gore and Bush on the environment were alone enough to know they were significantly different, not to mention possible Supreme Court nominations. But the true question is, on a political continuum was Gore to the right or left of Bush in 2000?

Gore's incompetence caused democrats to vote for George W, yes I can believe that, but why can't you admit what we all know is true: that Nader took more votes from Gore than George W? Can you really tell me that you knew more likely republicans voting for Nader than likely democrats?

Even George W is willing to say that mistakes were made in Iraq.

The real issue here is that because of your willingness and even amusement at punishing political allies whom don't seem to exactly measure up to your standard of ideological purity makes you unreliable, uncompromising demagogues. It is unfair that the right wing ideologues get such a large piece of the political marketplace, but I guess that is because they are willing to share the stage with their mainstream brethren.

I think that's a serious question. A Nobel prize winner, won the popular vote in 2000, former vice president- he's probably electable.

Whatever the reason(s) that Gore is choosing not to run, IMO asking this question may lead to more insightful revevlations than questioning why Ralph Nader is choosing to run.

If any other 'candidate' popped up now and made a run, after having garnered near zero support before it would merit one news article.

Similarly if any other candidate besides Clinton had lost 11 times in a row, no one would seriously consider them a contender. Hell the news might drop them from regular news coverage.

Bravo to omooex for succinctly articulating my thoughts on this, and kudos to Salon for selecting it as an editor's choice. I wish more people would open their eyes and minds about Ralph Nader and his work. Although I will concede that Ralph Nader may have gone too far in diminishing the overall differences between the candidates, I do believe that his original intent in 2000 was to distinguish the lack of distinction between the two parties -- at the time -- in a much larger context of the political process as a whole.

I doubt you would have seen Senators Clinton and Obama sound so populist without candidates like Edwards and Kucinich. Mr. Nader's candidacy will enlarge the debate and hold the ultimate nominees accountable to a broader range of issues beyond what we're hearing today. We need more like him doing what he is doing, not less.

People should read "Why I'm Running," Mr. Nader's interview with Tim Russert, even if they are not ultimately convinced. (http://www.slepton.com/slepton/viewcontent.pl?id=1496)

Tell me this is a joke.

I just did a search for Nader on Salon, and found this article in your old "Brilliant Careers" section:

http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html

I think we forget that in 2000, Nader's reputation was essentially flushed down the toilet by the Democratic Party. We should all be outraged that the Democratic Party, and all of its members, blamed the loss of 2000 on Nader, rather than blaming it on itself. If the Democrats had blamed 2000 on themselves, they might have had a chance at winning 2004, by realizing they weren't the party they should have been.

To suggest that Nader, after years of taking nothing short of principled stands on every issue, would run a presidential campaign just to "return a favor" to John McCain. C'mon, Joe, give me a break.

I guess all partisan Democrats -- like Eric Alterman in "An Unreasonable Man" -- just can't get over the fact that they lost in 2000 and 2004. Admit it, the Democratic Party has become the spineless, least-worst party of American politics. In many ways, I have more respect for Republicans nowadays, who, despite being wrong on almost every issue, aren't afraid of radical change, and can get people excited about the radical-ness of believing in deregulation. Very little about the Democratic Party excites me. Do they have a better platform than the Republicans? Yes. But not by much.

Could a modern "New Democrat" have implemented a progressive policy that was as sweeping/radical as the Republican "hollowing out of government" described in Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine"? At least the Republicans follow through on their ideology. What progressive reform did Bill Clinton get us? NAFTA? DMCA?

Do you think corporations would support Clinton and Obama if they were actually progressive? Take a look at articles like the following:

"Barack Obama, Inc.", Harper's Magazine:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

"Who Business is Betting On", Fortune:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm

There you'll see how it's "politics as usual", even for the Democrats. Sure, they rile you up with their health care plans. But do you think they'll actually implement them, if they are not even considering any cuts to, say, the military budget?

In 2000, Al Gore ran a bland campaign that didn't even mention global warming, even though it was supposedly the cause of his life. In 2004, Kerry tried to out-commander-in-chief George Bush, instead of pointing out his war crimes and calling the Iraq war a sham. And, mark my words, it'll happen again in 2008 if the Democrats don't get their act together and stop apologizing for being liberal. Obama wants to expand the military by tens of thousands of troops. Clinton thinks she's the fittest on day one to be commander-in-chief. I'm sorry, but my prediction is: McCain is perceived as a better commander-in-chief by average Joe Americans, Conservatives turn out their base against "Barack Hussein Obama," true progressives stay home, and Democrats lose. Eight more years of Republicans. Are they going to blame 2008 on Nader, too? When will they ever take responsibility? You're trying to tell me sixteen years of a paucity of progressive politics will be the fault of one man?