Dang it Nader. Stay out.

Is he being paid by Republicans? I am sure Rove has something to do with this.

Sweeeeet! We get to keep the White House. I never thought that I would be grateful to this leftist looney for anything. Way to go Nader!

I will ask again on this site. Where was Ralph Nader when poisoned pet food was getting into the US from China? Where was Ralph Nader when lead-painted and dangerous small parts on childrens' toys getting into the US from China? Also, just found some information on his personal wealth much of which he has 'donated' per his statement. But, he still has in a just-released financial disclosure statement a worth of at least $3.8 million. Even more striking, much of that wealth is invested in a small group of high-flying tech stocks such as Cisco Systems, Comcorp, Iomega and Ziff-Davis. Now, I am going to research those listed companies! MarkMcWane, I have had problems all morning in posting comments. I finally rebooted my PC and ran a full-scale scan.

he cost Gore the election in Florida and is evil incarnate.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN. I AM CONVINCED!!!!!!

Is he being paid by Republicans? I am sure Rove has something to do with this.

If either Nader or McCain get elected, congress will get all tied up in debate over how long the President gets for an afternoon nap.

The modern day Harold Stassen. Beyond irrelevant.

If nothing else, maybe the playing field will finally be leveled. Uncle Ralph will most likely go where no man (or woman) has gone before - and that's to bring light on Obama. I don't know, maybe this is a wake-up call to the media to do some real reporting for a change. I guess we all will see.

This guy is a cartoon.
I believed in 2000.
I tried to believe in 2004.
Oregon will not be duped again into wasting its votes on a marginal candidate. We need "Change we can believe in."

8 years ago, Nader handed George W. Bush the presidency by drawing votes away from Al Gore. The latter would have clearly outscored Bush in Florida so that the Supreme Court would not have had a chance to decide in favor of Bush.
A Republican plant could not serve the Republican nominee better than Nader.

So Nader's solution to America's problems is to give independents an alternative to vote for that expresses only HIS views? And the results will be another Republcan in the White House and another 100 years in Iraq....someone please explain to me how this will be better for America?

Shame on you Ralph Nader!

You are a self-centered egotistical idiot.

Al Gore lost in 2000 because he didn't carry his own state.

ROB: Your comments made me laugh. So true.

Why is this loser back again? He's a loser because he's tried twice. What makes him think he'd win now??? And why is he coming in this late in the game?

Well rove and nader are smart enough to know there are many ticked off HILLARY supporters who will not vote for Obama maybe rude is ok with his his supporters but it isn't with the older party members who are voting for Hillary he's so sure he can get our votes we shall see

Why would he take votes from Obama. Why would he not take votes from McCain?

silly...

Yeah... There is no difference between Dems and Republicans...

Except for the ire of the world, 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 4000 dead american kids, 60,000 americans maimed, 500 BILLION wasted on a useless war and trillions in debt.

No difference at all. Keep talking, Nader.

Loser!! Stay out, you are one of the primary persons responsible for our horrible eight years. You are just as guilty as Bush for bringing America down. Anyone that is considering in voting for Nader, please change you mind for the better of the US, a vote for Nader is a vote for more of Bush likes.. McCain..

Nader is the Huckabee of the left.

That said: Anything that shines negative on Obama can't be all bad.

Too bad he didn't announce two months ago.

What a tired old boring man.Go take a long nap Ralph.

The dems are downright hateful and mean, its all about them.always blame someone else. Thats their motto!

Not to worry: I don't think he will have the same effect he had back in 2000 and 2004. Democrats especially have seen first hand the deleterious results of those two elections. Getting another GWB look alike/sound alike/be alike is NOT what this country needs or wants. He may just be trying to make a statement and wants to hear some of his concerns and agendas come from the candidates. Obama is too strong a candidate to be marginalized by Nader.

What a dang joke. A whole lot of wasted money to help turn the country back over to the same losers that are running it now. Give me a break! Quite Ralph, you lost twice. I have a feeling three times is not gonna be a charm

Wow people are really afraid of Obama winning this thing. I am getting on Obama's train, I was on the Hillary's train, but I see it is crashing. My biggest problem with her is she cannot explain why she has more experience to lead this country over him. Neither can her followers. She just keeps going on with this 35 years experience. Ready on Day One. I want to see Obama take on McCain and Nader this should be a really good one.

Hey, Nader is my man. NADER - NADER - NADER -

So you noticed...

He gave the WORLD 4 more years of President Bush. He has an opportunity now to make amends by staying out of the race and donating his campaign funds to maintaining civil liberties around the world.

Would somebody please buy this guy an Erector Set so he's got something to do?

And Nadar's point is ... what? It saddens me to say, but I think this guy has completely lost the plot. He makes a mockery of the issues he fights for.

I remember watching Ralph Nader On A TV Interview in 2000 after GW Bush won, claimed that he is Republican, Nader claimed that he was always Republican, Nader claimed that he will always be Republican! He stated he was happy that he took votes away from the Democrats. He also stated that he could not help it if Democrats and Independents were NOT smart enough in Voting for him. Ralph Nader, I am here to trick you Because I will always be the Republican posing as an Independent Candidate. That TV INTERVIEW is in the Archives of NEWS media Interviews. Pull the Thing Out and expose it. It needs to be seen Nationally. Unless the LOBBYIST, Charles Black who Heads McCain's Campaign has the power to block it. And he probably does as the Lobbyist for Broadcasters corporations. Or the Lobbyist -Buse- who lobbies for the telecommunication companies, and who runs McCain's Senate Office also Blocks it from being viewed. Obama08

I think the potential effect Nader had on taking votes from Democrats in tight races and thus helping the Republicans is so widely known at this point, there's a good chance in 2008 the only votes he gets will be from those who simply wouldn't have come out to vote otherwise.

In other words, he shouldn't be too much of a thorn to Obama.

The man is older than John McCain........He turns 74 next Wednesday.

I love how everyone is already talking about Nader being a thorn to the democratic nominee, Obama, as if Clinton no longer exists. Pretty hillarious.

Then again, even her 'supporter' (or is it ex-supporter?) Kathleen Kennedy says that Hillary should drop out coz she's finished.

A bigger egomaniac than Obama; these guys with the big egos, you just can't keep them out of the race. I must admit I do get a kick out of seeing the Obama folks squirm...

We need a Ralph Nader in our country, that will defer the day to day politcal corruption, that seems to dominate the current political landscape. Right here in Connecticut we still have not recovered the original 2.3 million that was embezelled from the tax payers of ct durning the CRRA and Enron scandal,and the promante business man and his family who misapropated those funds to overseas banks still profit from those monies today, five years later, no one involved in this part of the scandal, has been indited, nor the money recovered, and I have to belive that if Ralph Nader was involved things would be different.

rachel - is just the numbers at this point. Clinton could have blow-out wins on March 4, and still face an uphill battle.

People who think this race is still close ought to look at percentages of delegates. Clinton hasn't even won 90 percent of the pledged delegates Obama has. And that with only 15 contests to go. Basically we're two-thirds of the way through with a third remaining, which means Clinton now would have to beat Obama by 20 percent (of delegates, not votes, which is harder) in the remaining contests to catch up - and some of the remaining states are very good for Obama.

So assuming superdelegates don't overturn the decision of pledged delegates, it would really take a major new dynamic in the race for Clinton to win - something that started really swinging votes in Clinton's direction by dramatic percentages.

To poster. tford: As a former CT yankee myself, I respected and admired Mr. Nader for all the good he did for CT, but he is not presidential material. He, like John Edwards gets too focused on too few items that need fixing. He is overzealous in a small area, and it doesn't carry over to the bigger picture. For Hillary it's health care, for Ralph it's corporate greed. That's not enough - there are many more things a President has to consider and I don't think Ralph makes a good case in attempting to solve those issues.

Perhaps news of Nader's run should finally draw attention to our out-of-date electoral system, where the candidate with the most votes wins even if no one has a majority. We could solve this problem by adopting instant runoff voting (IRV). IRV is a simple and more fair way to vote: First, you rank your choices in order of preference. Then, the first choices are counted, and if someone gets a majority, they win; but if no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters' votes count for their second choices instead. IRV is so simple, common-sense, and democratic that both the major parties' front-runners, McCain and Obama, publicly support it.

Zo Tobi - we're talking about an electorate who include not insignificant numbers of voters who can barely make their first choice correctly. Look at the Florida fiasco with the butterfly ballots.

IRV may be simple in small groups. The added complexity it brings is minor, and can be explained to the group. But in a national general election, we're still dealing with a handful but again not insignificant number of voters who have a hard enough time getting to the right location and using the voting procedures in place to vote for a single candidate.

Ralph is spot on when he says that if the Democratic Party's candidate for President loses this year, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

As to the claim that Ralph caused the reign of error over the last seven years, where's your data? There were more Democrats who voted for W in FL than all the votes Nader got in FL. Even Gore agrees that Nader did NOT cost him the election. The argument that Nader (like the Socialist Workers Party's candidate) got more votes than the difference between W & Gore and therefore cost the election fails on several fronts: First, you have to show that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot. Next, you have to prove that Gore lost the election. In fact, Gore won the election, nationally and in Florida (but not in his home state of TN). In fact, the vast majority of Nader voters would never have come out to vote at all but that Nader was on the ticket.

To make Ralph a footnote to history, adopt his reasonable policies:

1. A truly free market economy, not a a market controlled by the plutocrats;

2. adopt a single-payer healthcare for all system. Insurance is cheaper when your universe of covered individuals is larger. Therefore the cheapest way to go is cover everyone, the largest universe of coverage.

3. Subordinate the rights of corporations to the rights of humans.

4. Adopt a carbon tax

5. Aggressively crack down on corporate crime (which costs 100's of times more than any other type of crime; which kills more people than any other type of crime) and corporate welfare.

By adopting these issues, you will not only make Ralph's candidate moot, you will also bring to the polls more voters for your candidate.

I will say this: If Hill is the candidate in November, I will vote for Ralph. If O'Bama is the candidate, I will reconsider my vote, and encourage the Senator to insist that Nader be included in the debates. Such a debate will mean that on issues that matter most to likely voters, McCain will appear isolated. And Nader will move the debate towards a more progressive, more compassionate America, a nation that believes in clean air and water for all, in healthcare that's always there, in peace and prosperity. That's an America in which I can take pride.

So, as to Nader's candidacy, I say: Bring it on. If the Dems are so insecure, if they are afraid to adopt the issues outlined above, then they really might lose in November, and will have no one to blame but themselves.

Nader didn't give us 4 more years of Bush--Lazy Democrats who didn't get off their butts and vote in 2004 gave us 4 more years. When are Democrats going to stop acting like whiny 2 year-olds and take responsiblity for the results of the 2004 election!

The rampant cynicism displayed by my fellow Americans is greatly depressing. FDR correctly noted that this country is being controlled by a corporate elite. Woodrow Wilson told of the great danger to our democracy, because the Federal Reserve System, which is owned by the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The IMF is involved with two arms of this elite element being the Council on Foreign Relations. The fact is there are no coincidences concerning the viability of a Presidential Candidate and the financial support they are given. Universe health should have been a no-brainer, yet brand new babies in this country may eventually get stuck with the bill from being brought in this world from a autocratic esoteric zeitgeist preying on the insecurities of all Americans.
Peace and God Bless
Daniel

Someone get the man a Corvair !!!!! A nice little economical car ahead of its time killed by Ralph Nader. Probably safer than some of the crap we drive today. They are now classics; that's more than we can say for him.

I believe that Nader brings up several important and valid points that are worthy of consideration. I also believe that the other candidates pretty much want to make these points non-issues.

I think if there are any voters who feel that these issues are important to them, These voters shoulnd not feel as though they owe the Democratic or Republican Parties anything.

If the major candidates are willing to address these issues, then maybe Nader supporters should consider switching their vote to one of these major candidates.

In the 2000 election, Gore refused to address any of these issues of concern, which I believe directly effect my ability to have a livelyhood...I voted for Nader, and I'll do the same this time around, unless the Major Candidate is willing to address my concerns, rather than try to convince me that my corncerns are invalid, and the Major Party supporters try to convince me that I owe them my vote.

Geez, some people just don't know what democracy is all about. If you think he hurts the democratic whitehouse bid blame the two-party system, not Nader. It's his right to be able to run if he can get enough money and support.

It really doesn't matter what you guys think; OOPS I said it...

In the current race, i.e. McCain v. Obama, there is an obvious choice for the voters.
It'll be a landslide for Obama with or without Nader.

Nader might get a few votes, but people aren't in the mood to screw around with a vanity candidate again.

Nader you"re doing the right thing, help us to defeat Obama.

The reality of the race for the nomination is that Hillary & Obama are almost tied. If Hillary does'nt win, Nader provides an alternative.

This guy has an ego that could be photographed from the moon. He knows he's responsible for foisting Bush on us and still maintains he wasn't a factor, even when Russert confronted him with the facts!

Anyway, he only got .04% of the vote in '04, so I don't see him being much of a factor this time around.

But he is such a bore. Why doesn't he just go away?

Gravel, Paul, and now Nader -- all angry and senile old white men with nothing else to do with their time. Nader will have the same impact as the other two, i.e. none.

Personally, I'm tired of the democrat/republican binary opposition. If Nader wants to run, great. Let Ron Paul run as a Libertarian and Al Gore run for the Green Party. Let's have a real presidential contest for once.

I don't see any of you Dems complaining about the fact that Ross Perot took votes from Bush senior and got Bubba elected. Oh, that's different, right?

one nibble - I don't agree that Obama and Clinton are nearly tied for the nomination, and the numbers are on my side. To illustrate how much of a lead Obama has, he can afford losing all four states on March 4 by significant proportions of popular vote, and still hold a commanding delegate lead.

Clinton isn't mathematically out, but she is now in a situation that is very difficult - pretty much has to win every remaining contest decisively just to catch up. And some of the coming states are very good ones for Obama.

I support Hillary, but Nader raises some excellent points about Hillary, Obama, and McCain. Nader also believes that he truly doesn't affect the outcome. The 2004 election sort of proves his point. He may siphon some independent votes from McCain versus the Democratic nominee -- probably helps Hillary if she is the nominee. If I were a superdelegate should I weigh the Nader factor? I think so.

WestCoast - I agree that Nader probably won't have a big impact this year. I disagree that he would be more likely to take McCain votes than any Democratic nominee.

One other point, as I recall Nader doesn't get to vote more than once. So I'm guessing it would be American people voting for Nader. It would be up to the major candidates to have a better message. Isn't this the free market system? If Nader's message sells to some disenfranchised people, and that is a large enough margin to affect an outcome, that would be evidence of the diversity that we as Democrats are so proud of. If you don't like the system then change it. Currently, there's no run-off election, maybe it's time for something that is this important.

If you enjoy seatbelts, airbags and the Freedom of Information act -- you may want to thank Ralph Nader and those who work with him or for organizations he founded or helped found.

Nader and the group of activists, lawyers and supporters known as "Nader's Raiders", brought these things (and much, much more we enjoy) to us.

As concerns "where was Ralph when..." --(insert litany including tainted pet food and lead paint on toys)--.

The Clinton and Bush administration and their "Free Trade" legislation has taken these issues away from the purview of our courts -- the corporations now regulate themselves and are insulated against lawsuit to a massive degree by these trade agreements -- so thank Clinton & Bush for those debacles -- sadly Ralph and a new batch of Raiders would face a global legal battle, perhaps spanning decades, to try to undo these laws favoring corporations over people.

What I find so disturbing about Old man Nader...is the fact that he hasn't won anything...We are not going to fall for his nonsense this time...We as Americans are focused and want dramatic change....After all his BS...He goes home to his mansion and his millions of dollars and leaves Americans holding the bag.Mr. Nader I say this to you directly...YOU ARE LIKE A BAD RASH THAT JUST WONT GO AWAY.. GIVE UP YOUR MILLIONS....GIVE IT ALL AWAY TO THE MILLIONS OF FAMILIES THAT YOUR DIVISIVENESS HAS CAUSED...WE ARE NOT LOOKING BACKWARD...WE AS A NATION ARE GOING TO MARCH FORWARD...WITH OR WITHOUT YOU...

Well, well...Ralph "hater" Nader is back at it. You know, I had respect for him once, but after the "00 elections, I realized America will always have a 2 party system, financed with corporate money, and a president to do their bidding. I also wonder what Bill will be doing to kill time as the first husband to President Hillary...staying home watching all the young interns I reckin"

Finally the Obamainiacs, and the Shrilliary's can agree on something. And it wasn't even a cold day in hell. Thank you Ralph, expose Obama, Hilliary, and McCain. John Kerry rejected your ideas and went soft on Bush in '04 and DESERVED to lose. Gore wouldn't defend the progressive wing of the party either and flailed trying to be Clinton II without being Clinton. Thank you for trying to keep the Democrats in touch with the progressive wing of the party. Don't let McCain off the hook, make Obama put something of substance beside his empty words. And hold Hilliary accountable for being a corporate Democrat who sells out the progressive wing of the party for votes from the Republicans, and the support of big buisness over the needs and wants of the American people. Run Ralph run, let the American people's concerns be heard to the elitists running for President in this staged election. You will continue to honor the principles of this country with your service.

al gore won florida in 2000 --
nader's 93,000 votes just gave the republicans more cover when they whisked the decision to the supreme oourt to annoint GWB--

Nader did not cost Gore the Election - the Supreme Court stole it and Gore - an amazing patriot - did not cause harm to his country by demanding a recount --

I live in Florida and then extensive review and recount of the 2000 vote by the Miami Herald proved Gore had more votes

Dec 2000 when the Supreme Court destroyed democracy was the beginning of the nightmare we are still in --

Obama has shown he can flatten the vaunted CLinton machine and he will do the same to the Republican attack machine -- he answers the charges calmy and with facts and logic -- and they are not used to that
---
Nader will be a non issue in this race--that being said it is sad to watch someone like Nader who did a lot of good work in his career -- make himself such a joke by his refusal to step off the stage --

I thought Obama's analysis of Nader yesterday was exactly right -- that if you do not embrace Nader's agenda 100%- then he is not interested in you --
This is just one of the reasons Nader never won any election and never will--

He could have been so much more relevant reaching all the new people Obama has brought into the process by being a supportive surrogate -- but his ego (similiarly to Bill Clinton) just does not allow for anyone to "upstage" them -- sadly both these valuable public citizens are making themselves irrelevant to the public instead of securing their own legacys

After the 2000 election, I was really disappointed in the short-sightedness and petty self-indulgence of my friends who supported Nader. No matter what pet issues people have, there was a HUGE difference between Gore and Bush, just as there's a HUGE difference between Obama and McCain. Do we really want to risk staying in Iraq even one day longer than we have to, if not 100 years? Do we want to risk military action against Iran under McCain? Hopefully, Nader will not be much of a factor this time.

I hope Barack Obama will win and win big. He is the right candidate for our times. His grass-roots supporters will breathe life into our tired political process--hopefully we all will remain active once Obama is in office.

to GPin MD:
You tout Nader's push for universal healthcare, which I too say it's way overdue. However, then you say you'll vote Nader if Senator Clinton gets the nomination. She is the only one besides Nader calling for UNIVERSAL healthcare. I do not get it.
As to Obama getting the nomination, the race isn't over. Let the voters in other states be heard.
Bush was elected because people voted for Bush. They brought us to where we are today and indeed they voted for him twice! That I really cannot understand.

Anti Nader-ites are pretty stupid people. The ones that aren't stupid are careless.

National health care will bankrupt this country accrding to the government's own accountant. And Obama want's to put all the troops into Afghanistan and leave Iraq and Pakistan. Um, can you say... shell game.

I for one like the fact that R Nader will be in, and with him certain important issues will get articulated, advocated, and will not be lost in the noise of the main stream. I think that this time around, he will terminate his candidacy at some point before the election date, implicitly endorsing Obama. If he does not do this, he probably will not get as much votes as he did the last time, so I would not be worrying about it (although I would be disappointed in Ralph).

Right on Ralph! You would be the most awesome President, and we should elect you. The corporate control of our government has got to stop. You are the only candidate who would stop it, and return us to our true roots in democracy.

Ralph...doesn't matter. Hiliary...finished. McCain...has too much going on. Obama...too good to be true. Who should i vote 4? Does my vote really matter. Can we truly jump start our economy and butt out of others people business. 4 YEARS that will ultimately change the our existence. 2012 very relevant year!!!!

Ok, Obama is a great panderer, stop pandering at the deabtes dude, it is ugly. He keeps pandering, "protecting" his hisponic couins.....do not offend our hispanic voters?? What a lie!!!!!

Many blame Ralph Nader for stealing the votes from Al Gore in 2000 to let Bush win. Well for their information, he didn't. Al Gore had most of the popular vote anyway compared to Bush. Second of all, the Electoral College along with the Supreme Court gave Bush the white house.

In this country according to the Constitution, anyone can run for President. Ralph Nader has done more for this country than the current candidates running from the Democratic and Republican side. He's saved millions of lives with seat belts, air bags, protected millions more with consumer rights, fought for injustices, worked hard to get policies passed that worked for the people. Today, the American citizens should focus on these achievements of Mr. Nader and consider him an ideal candidate again so we can have a "revolution" instead of a change in this country.

Nader will definitely take votes away from Obama. Lot of Hillary supporters will vote for Nader.

To the Nader bashers, your youth is showing. Nader has made this country a much, much better, safer place to live. He deserves to be in this race as much as anyone! Learn about him before you dismiss him out of hand. It fascinates me that people are latching onto Obama because he is fresh and new. Remember change for the sake of change is not always desirable or better.

Feb 24, 3:41:09PM, WestCoastMessenger says: "...it would be American people voting for Nader. It would be up to the major candidates to have a better message. Isn't this the free market system? If Nader's message sells to some disenfranchised people, and that is a large enough margin to affect an outcome..."
This is a bit scary. You do know that "the free market system" is an *economic* system, right? The *political* system here (candidates, voting, presidents, etc.) is called democracy. You know they are distinct and different, don't you? And having one (democracy) does not automatically require having the other ("free market"), and visa-versa. Maybe we need Nader to remind us of at least this fundamental point.

I love it! He'll take on Obama and expose him for the charleton he is. Thanks Nader for stepping in and slowing the pace.