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.