Not again. I don't care what his intentions are this time, his intentions the last time were pure ego in sticking it to the Democratic Party. And of course we all know that the entire country got stuck with the worst president ever.

God dammit Ralph don't do this again.

It is interesting that impeachment is included in the list. It doesn't make much sense to run on an impeachment platform since you can only impeach a sitting president (and after the election there will obviously be a new president).

I do have to say if Nader runs he may well be more hated than Bush is. I'd seriously be concerned for his safety.

Oh, it'll be alright. After 2000, Nader's got even less of a chance than McCain in 2008. Even running a weaker-than-tea, soggy cardboard candidacy, Gore still won the popular vote, even with Nader's 2.8 million votes. Obama's running a far stronger candidacy than Gore, Kerry, or HR Clinton.

Sadly, I even agree that the Democrats really need to embrace single-payer and serious reduction and reallocation in defense spending, but there's no way in hell I'd vote for Nader in this election. I think plenty of people will concur, and this'll be Nader's last presidential windmill tilt.

A President can be impeached after the fact.

But, doesn't that assume that every vote cast for Nader belonged to the Democrats? That's some sense of entitlement to simply tell someone they can't run or they can't vote for whomever they want. If the Democrats had paid attention to people who actually would vote for them, rather than trying to appeal to voters who never will (and lots of K Street money), Nader would have no support.

Let him announce his latest vanity run. There's little chance he will convince many this time around.

How can he sell himself as having the judgment and temperment to be President when he couldn't see the difference between George Bush and Al Gore?

At this point, a Nader campaign is more sad and pathetic rather than a true obstacle to Democrats.

What does he think this is - a free county?

A President can be impeached after the fact.

Technically he can, but the only reason to do so would be to bar him from re-election, which isn't possible anyway. It would also invalidate any pension, but again, what's the point?

The only reason to impeach the President is to remove him from office, so doing so after the fact would only be ceremonial (which come to think of it is really all Nader is. . .).

Really, who cares if Ralph Nader runs for President again? I suspect that most people who've supported his bids in the past (including myself in 2000) are unlikely to do so this year, same as it went in 2004, and those who do will not be much of a hindrance to the Democrats' prospects. If the Dems manage to lose the Presidency again this year, they really have no one but themselves to blame.

More than anything, I think the idea of yet another Nader Presidential campaign is just sad. I love the guy, but he's making a fool of himself and his legacy. He and his message would be so much more effective and influential if he dispensed with the futile election year wank-a-thons and concentrated his efforts elsewhere.

Without his 2000 candidacy there would be no need for the idea of an Bush/Cheney impeachment…

What Democrat in his right mind would vote for the guy who single-handedly gave us George W. Bush in 2000 by siphoning votes away from a man who would never have created the problems he's so concerned about? Nader is a creepy spoiler who just likes to make himself important.

He has every right to do whatever he wants to do and if he runs, he runs. But I don't think there'll be much of a swell of support for him.

After all, fool me once ...

RALPH! Don't you DARE!!! Remember what a messyou made in 2000? Do something for your country. Endorse Obama!

As someone else noted, a Nader run is good for Obama. It helps to dispel the notion in general circles that he's far too lefty for the presidency.

Thankfully, Democrats are either too old to be snookered into helping create a McCain presidency, or too young to know who this guy "Nadir" is.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

Ok, I feel better now. Sure, it's a free country, he's free to run, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Can we please stop treating this election like it's already over just because we're running against Grandpa Simpson? We lost by 537 votes in 2000, and maybe by a few crooked tricks in Ohio in 2004. The last thing we need is this vain egotistical asshole siphoning off even 10,000 votes in (for example) Pennsylvania that hand the White House to John McCain.

To repeat, no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

"Technically he can, but the only reason to do so would be to bar him from re-election, which isn't possible anyway. It would also invalidate any pension, but again, what's the point?"

I don't want our taxes paying for that man's pension, that's reason enough for me. It's bad enough my generation and those that follow will be paying for his ill-thought foreign adventure in Iraq. That's more than enough.

But, then again, maybe this wouldn't have even been an issue if spoiler-Nader hadn't played his game back in 2000?

It isn't just candidate Ralph Nader, it's perennial candidate Ralph Nader.

Please, he's worked for it and earned it.

You can either vote for WAR or you can vote for Nader.

Go ahead, in you heart you know you like to see human beings getting blown up and shot. Don't waste your vote on peace.

Well, if Old St. Ralph has the 10 million bucks and enough lawyer-volunteers to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states, good for him.

I say bring it on. Though I doubt he'd be kind to Hillary, I do believe he'd remind us that Obama has not fought for progressive issues in the Senate or in his campaign. Nader would point out repeatedly that Obama's record in the Senate is damned mediocre, at best. He would remind us that as a first-term senator, Obama hasn't done much of anything and that Obama's self-serving, cautious "self-censorship" is a "reflection of his character."

Of course, Nader would also remind us that John McCain is the candidate of perpetual war.

So, Ralph Nader won't be a spoiler, but he could generate some serious discussion of who Obama really is.