KEEP NADER OUT OF THE RACE FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY

Sent by JOHN CLORAN | 9:48 AM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader, i.e. the Kingmaker who brought us George W. Bush. Has he no shame?

Sent by George de Man, Rome GA | 10:04 AM ET | 02-25-2008

Fallows is right. Nader's candidacy is a farce. Nader and others who say there is no difference between the parties have their heads in the sand or in even darker places. One need only look at the difference in judicial and other appointments. Nader cannot with a straight face say that democratic appointees are no better for consumers than republican appointees.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 10:29 AM ET | 02-25-2008

These are the typical "standard bearer", "single issue" candidates.
Almost as bad as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Healthcare is a single issue! It may be the tipping point for some people, but (I hope) most voters understand that there is more to running this country than free doctor/hospital visits.

Sent by Harold | 10:55 AM ET | 02-25-2008

On hearing that Nader has once again thrown his hat in the presidential race, I can only steal Pat Paulsen's presidential campaign slogan: Nader, "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours."

Sent by Roger | 12:13 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Odd that a man of Nader's apparent intelligence doesn't understand the historical consequences of his last profoundly unsuccessful bids for President. Hopefully, those who supported him in the past will recognize their own folly.

Sent by J Kent | 1:24 PM ET | 02-25-2008

All third party candidates got more votes in the 2000 election than the difference between between votes for Al Gore and George Bush. People who blame Nader for not dropping out are showing how dependent they are on others for their opinions: the blame of Nader was propaganda of the Democratic party. Please look at www.votenader.org for his platform details. Please consider watching the documentary on Nader (released 2006). Prior to watching this documentary, I had drawn no conclusion on Nader. I had little actual facts on which to draw. I now respect his selfless care for the American public. Whether or not you support him, bear in mind he has saved countless lives through his efforts, and speak of him with respect.

Sent by Rebecca | 2:02 PM ET | 02-25-2008

P.S. This is from his website:
"Today, Senator Obama said that in 2000, I believed ???there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush.???

In fact, what I said was that the similarities between the two political parties towered over the dwindling differences that they are willing to fight over."

Sent by Rebecca | 2:05 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader is the best candidate we have had in many years. The republicans and democrats are ruining this country, and independents have no voice.

The spineless worms here who have insulted Ralph Nader, who has spent a lifetime working for your benefit, ought to be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Wake up people.

Sent by Jody Sol | 2:12 PM ET | 02-25-2008

If the majority of Americans thought Ralph Nader is the man who knows what they care about and how to make it happen he would already be President. Instead his announcement is once again greated with a collective groan.

Sent by Lauren Roberts | 3:06 PM ET | 02-25-2008

What is the Nader position on Global Warming?????????

Sent by Tom Conklin | 3:10 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Please, Mr. Nader, for the good of the country, don't screw things up again! I think you are on an ego-trip and can't stand the thought of someone else in the lime-light.

Sent by Diane | 3:11 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader is dedicated to helping people. He isn't worried about losing his legacy because he has done so much for this country that there is no way it can be tarnished. He was not the reason Gore or Kerry lost. People that dwell on that are wrong and missing the point. If he dropped out so that a Democrat could win, then he wouldn't be a man of true conviction. Luckily he is, and hopefully the American people will recognize that and break the system that only gives "free" Americans the right to only choose between two parties.

Sent by Ashley | 3:12 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI

I heard a caller on Air America suggest that Nader spend his energy making a REAL difference -instead of getting his name on the ballot in 50 states, get initiatives for election reform (like proportional representation or instant runoffs) on the ballot in 50 states.

Sent by Brian Lupiani | 3:14 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Re Jodi: What do you expect from a two party system?

Sent by John Archibald | 3:14 PM ET | 02-25-2008

An unintended consiquence of Nader's run in 2000 was the disasterous presidency of GW Bush. What would Nader say were the positive results of that run? And was it worth it? Why do you need to run for president to have a forum for raising issues?

Sent by Mardi McKellips | 3:15 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Despite Mr. Nader's well supported points, it is clear that his great work will be undermined by his desire to stand as the head of our country. Can't Public Citizen and Nader's raiders come up with a less devisive and palatable candidate as a third party representative?

Sent by Tom | 3:16 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph are you sure that it is not "your ego" that is running again for President.

Sent by Rita Sterrett | 3:17 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader was once a good contributer to this nation through his activism. But that time passed...a while ago. He then became an insane egomaniac and helped ruin our last presidential election, which put Bush in power=Iraq. And here he is again! Jeeze! Will he not go away? He is not going to do any good this way. He is CRAZY, and worse, selfish!

Sent by P. R. | 3:17 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I agree with Ralph on all the issues, but I will only vote for a candidate that supports Fair Tax, so my question is do you?

Sent by Elijah | 3:17 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Hurray for Nader and shame on anyone who blames him for siphoning votes from Democratic candidates. I voted for him in the past and I will likely vote for him this year because I respect his truth-telling. Once any party's candidate accepts the proposition that winning is all that matters, we have have all lost our democracy. the fact that elections between anointed candidates have become such a toss up only confirms his message that corporate power has taken the government away from the people. The only thing he spoils is the illusion that we have a real choice.

Sent by mary | 3:18 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Please Not Ralph!! I worked for the Gore campaign and watched your supporters put Bush back in the White House for another 4 years of destruction. You call yourself a Green candidate--well no thank you. We could have had Al Gore. Please do not ruin the Democrats chances for 2008 and step down before you begin!

Sent by Cynthia Francisco | 3:18 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I am a mother of a two year son. We met Ralph when he was speaking in Utah some months ago. I have voted for Ralph twice and I will vote for him again.
IWhen I heard that Ralph would be talking on Meet The Press I watched with the hope that Obama would have brought Ralph Nader and his uncompromising vision back into the fold. My dream was to see Ralph Nader endorsing a leader of the next generation, and becoming an influence again.
Since I live in Utah, I will vote for Ralph. He has always been a hero to me, and I am proud to be able to point to him when my son wants to talk real live super heroes.

Sent by Chantal Downing | 3:20 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader,
Please, do something really helpful for this country. Work to find a way to get a constitutional ban on the concept of money as a form of speech. The ability of folks with money to buy time/obligation from politicians is the source of most of the problems you'd like to address. This business of running for president detracts from your chance to have a real lasting effect on our country's future.

Sent by William Holmes | 3:21 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader,

"Spoiler" is a term applied to a candidate who has no chance of winning, but effects the election. You have detreminetally effected the country by influencing the 2000 election and putting George Bush into the presidency. His presence in the White House is directly connected to your efforts to get corporate influences out of government. It seems ironic and backhanded that you are tryingt to remove those influences and that the effect is to greatly enhance them.

Regards,
Jim in San Francisco

Sent by Jim in San Francisco | 3:21 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader on talk of the nation following a columnist who beseeches the media to be the "adults in the room" when a destructive celebrity seeks attention.

Could nothing be more clear in the case of Ralph Nader. It is time to intervene and determine if his medications in old age have conspired to undo what once was a unique wisdom.

He is doing harm to himself and the nation. He still had blood on his hands from 2000. Had he not been in the race Gore would have been the president, we would not be in Iraq and thousands of Iraqi citizens and brave and selfless men and women of our armed forces would not have had to pay for Nader's cowardice and selfishness with their lives.

Sent by Tom O'Connor | 3:23 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I voted for Ralph in 2000 and resent being told it's my fault Gore lost the election. This implies that a candidate is entitled to my vote just because I consider him or her the lesser of two proverbial evils.

On the contrary, candidates must EARN my vote and that year neither Mr. Gore nor Mr. Bush did anything to instill confidence in me that they were the best this country had to offer for president.

Sent by R.L. Fletcher | 3:24 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Do you think that people will be reluctant to vote for Nadar with the prospect of either the first black or female president? Furthermore, do you think that Nadar's entry into the election will hinder the chances of the nation's first black or female president?

Sent by Timmy Gibson of Murfreesboro, TN | 3:25 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I was a big supporter of Nader in the 2000 election, when I was 24 years old, extremely hopeful and perhaps a bit naive. I clearly remember Nader arguing that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W Bush, that they were both corporations disguised as people. 8 years later, Al Gore has a Nobel peace prize and I don't have to remind anyone about Bush's troubling legacy. I wonder, does Nader still stand behind his prior position?

Sent by Kaleem Khwaja | 3:27 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader seeks only self-agrandizement by entering the race. He can not win and will, at best once again, create a republican administration that he can again rail against.

Sent by Robin | 3:27 PM ET | 02-25-2008

This guy is nothing less and nothing more than a spoiler. His campaign is just another exercise in personal vanity and self-indulgence, and I've little doubt that the majority of those who say they want him to run are Republicans who know that a divided left cannot elect a president. I will not listen to what he has to say this year. Obama in '08!

Sent by Glen | 3:29 PM ET | 02-25-2008

How can any President successfully govern without the support of Congress. What if Ralph is elected and BOTH parties igore Ralph's agenda?

Sent by bruce JaxFL | 3:33 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader,

You seem to be an intelligent man, but you continuously equate the two major parties. Do you really honestly see no difference between the neo-cons and anyone from the Republican Party and anyone from the Democratic Parties? It is true that corporate influences exist in both parties, but that is not the whole picture - there are meaningful policy differences between the parties.

Sent by Jim King | 3:33 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I haven't voted for a Republican or Democrat since 1988, for the reasons you cite.
Your thoughts on my dream ticket of Nader-Paul, or Paul-Nader?

Sent by Bruce | 3:34 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ok, Mr. Nader, your basic premise and ideas are right on. HOWEVER, this is NOT the time to jump into the race and pull valuable votes from the two party system. Why have you waited to this late date? Could you have been stumping and getting the platform together when there was a more open field of candidates? A year ago putting your name in the hat would have given us time to really gather around your platform. Now is way TOO LATE. This country needs to get behind a democratic candidate and push the republicans out of office to get a chance for even a BIT of change from the current mess. PLEASE back a candidate and assist them in making the changes that need to be made rather than pulling votes away from a the current candidates.

Sent by Julie Brent | 3:35 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nadar,

Do you feel any responsibility for the war in Iraq?

Sent by Deborah Baker | 3:36 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader's diatribe against America's capitulation to corporate power can be attributed directly to HIM! After nearly 8 years of Republican control, his is an ironically disingenuous argument. But for a few votes in Florida, we could have avoided the very thing he says he hates. Admit it, Ralph. It's your ego that's driving you. Find another way.!

Sent by gary tolliver | 3:37 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Many other "minor" candidates had their say during the lead up to the primary season; a period that has gone on for a year already. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are examples. If Ralph Nader wants to be part of the discussion, why didn't he just join one of the parties and run along with the other candidates? He could have been part of the presidential debate process. To enter the discussion at this late stage seems to me that he's just wants to be a spoiler and nothing more.

Sent by Bruce Wakefield | 3:40 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Rebecca,
Nader HAS saved lives as a consumer advocate. And then he set consumers back 50 years by paving the way for a conservative Supreme Court.

Sent by John Genette | 3:44 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader is right that the Democrats have to do better on issues like poverty, the war, and the environment. But without his spoiler candidacy in 2000, we would not have the Iraq war, hyper-conservative judges on the federal benches, millions of acres of scenic public lands in the west transformed into oil fields, denial of the impacts of climate change, and on and on. Yes, Gore should have done to take on Bush's record, but Nader should have seen the dire consequences of a Bush presidency (many did) and pulled out. Because he didn't, innocent people lost their lives, and basic constitutional protections are under attack. I will even never consider voting for Nader.

Sent by heidi m. | 3:45 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader has ever right to run for President, and I admire all the work he has done for the public.
That said, he knows that he has not chance of ever winning, so he is either naive or extremely arrogant for running first in 2000 which cost the Dem's. the election and gave us Bush for 8 years with his disasterous
administration.

I can never forgive Nader for being that popus.

Sent by Ekkehardt Keller | 3:45 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I am furious with Nader for tipping the balance of the vote in 2000. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have had 8 years of distructive Bush politics.

For all his knowledge and effort, Nader hasn't been able to put together a platform that appleals to enough of the electorate to come anywhere near being elected.

Nader's a spoiler plain and simple. Is he being secretly funded by the Republican Party?

Sent by Joe S | 3:47 PM ET | 02-25-2008

James Fallows' remarks are farcical. As Rebecca already noted, Ralph Nader did NOT cost Al Gore the 2000 election any more than the other third party candidates Patrick Buchanan (Reform - 17,484 votes), Harry Browne (Libertarian - 16,415 votes), John Hagelin (Natural Law - 2,281 votes) or Howard Phillips (Constitution - 1,378 votes) did. Please stop repeating this lie.

Personally, I'm thrilled that Ralph is running. His voice needs to be heard, especially since he is willing to tackle the issues that have been "pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines."

Sent by Dan | 3:47 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader suggests telling pollsters that you support Nader, then when when you vote, do your own thing. At first this might appear dishonest. But since we have the secret ballot in this country, no one has any obligation to reveal how he/she plans to vote. Nor is it dishonest to change your mind.

Sent by Graham Raynolds | 3:57 PM ET | 02-25-2008

It is really sad to see Ralph Nader today. In the past he had done some valuable things. Today cars come with airbags as standard equipment. We owe that to Ralph Nader. It is sad to see him reduced to an ineffectual ranter like Rush Limbaugh. Looking at his twelve issues that matter, there is actually little real difference in his positions and either of the two major Democratic candidates other than his are much more vague. The most significant is that he is for the impeachment of George Bush! Think about it! If he gets elected, that will be a moot point.

Sent by Wm Fay | 4:39 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader has nothing new to add and continues to demonstrate that he is stuck back in his heyday. Look at WHEN he was relevant in a positive way...in the 1960's and 1970's and its been downhill (except for his ego) ever since.

Sent by W.S. | 4:41 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Who does Ralph Nader think he is?? He should be ashamed of himself!! If Ralph Nader quit as he should have Al Gore would have won and we would not have to live with this hateful war that has taken so many thousands lives and have to suffer through eight years of George W. Bush. Is Ralph Nader really so self-serving that he cannot realize the reproductions of his actions, or is he just conveniently on the GOP payroll?? He sure does seem to resurface when the Republicans are in trouble doesn???t he? Food for thought Independent voters???.don???t let Ralph jeopardize this country again.

Sent by Nico | 5:01 PM ET | 02-25-2008

If Nader was given equal news coverage in 2000 to that of his competitors, 9/11 doesn't happen and we are not at war with Iraq.

Say No to Nafta
Yes to UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE (I have experienced Canada's First Hand on a Satruday Night in Toronto), and it is on par with our own, don't believe the bull.
Say yes to Nader. Now, if we can only get those democrats to step down, they won't spoil THIS race for him.

Sent by Brian Fritzen | 5:04 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader- Stay out of the race. Don't you have anything better to do. We have Bush because of you.

Sent by Mitsos the trelos | 5:17 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader's twelve issues that matter
1) Impeach Bush/Cheney ??? moot point after Jan 20, 2009. Only 330 impeaching days left.

2) Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East ??? not very specific
3) Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget ??? Who doesn't?
4) Adopt single payer national health insurance ??? not the only aspect of the problem. Hardly much disagreement in principle.

5) No to nuclear power, solar energy first ??? not very specific, not very practical. Devil is in the details.
6) Adopt a carbon pollution tax ??? off the mark. Is this carbon cap & trade?

7) Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare - duhh
8) Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax ??? also a little vague
9) Work to end corporate personhood ??? also a little vague, needs to be discussed
10) Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law ??? sounds good, but why has this never been done? It has been in effect for 60 years, since 1948! Sounds like it is not as simple as it sounds.

11) Put an end to ballot access obstructionism ??? sour grapes. Both major parties started with more than 10 candidates. The debates became mind numbing. The fact is Nader isn't even competitive with Ron Paul, Mike Gravel or Duncan Hunter.
12) Open up the Presidential debates ??? see above.

What I can't fathom is that he has said nothing about the predatory lending which is indistinguishable from loan-sharking. He has been silent on telecommunication companies who have enabled illegal government eavesdropping. And his silence on the immigration issue is thundering.

Be clear, I have no fear that Ralph will have any effect on this year's election. What bothers me is that he can only add noise to a process which has been unusually productive to date. The only thing which is clear is that Ralph thinks that this is his best shot at being noticed by being as disruptive as possible. Sorry, this is inconsequential noise.

Sent by Wm Fay | 5:37 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader is not an independent: his mindless, ego driven stupidity has done more for the most extreme conservative Republican cause, and more damage to the country, than any person in the last 20 years. There is a special place in hell waiting for him.

Allow me There is special place in hell awaiting Nader for the damage to this country his ego has wrought.

Sent by Specialplace | 7:16 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Thank you Jody Sol. That people are unwilling to see that Nader speaks truth re: the corporate power and influence of the 2 major parties is a sad indication that we really have become the Corporate States of America. Why are so many people fine with that?

Possibly too late for enough to wake up for real change to occur now. Maybe another 20 years...

Sent by jen | 7:18 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I will laugh when Ralph Nader gets McCain elected as President and suddenly NPR's Federal funding is cut by Executive Order.
Good Job NPR...

Sent by John Ambrose | 7:36 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Democrats need to give it a rest. Nader has done more for America than half the senate and congress combined. he will bring to light issues that Clinton and Obama won't dare bring up because of their corporate bent. Democrats are whiners. They made up this big story of an"open tent". Open only if you can agree.

Sent by Kevin Pennick | 7:42 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph gets more NPR AND PUBLIC Tv free advertising than he buys in normal markets why the free ride?

Sent by D.K. Ratliff | 8:05 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader is clearly a self interested egotist. How could any rational individual, make this decision to run again, after the national cluster f__k he has directly contributed to. Who the hell payrolls this guy?

Sent by William | 8:30 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Of, by and for those with the means to influence. That is the standard of the two major parties. The wall they have built to keep "minor" party candidates from havig a voice does not scream democracy. Our founding fathers would be aghast at what these two parties have done to our country and the world. Do you believe the powers that control our country have the peoples best interest at heart? Compare what is done "legally" by "our" legislators to all Mr. Nader has accomplished. How can you not see the difference? Are you led by the media, and have not the desire or energy to see the truth? Do you know why Mr. Gore made a deal with the RNC to keep Mr. Nader from the debates? All it will take is a little bit of effort to discover what is going on. Or are you happy with the numbers of dead, without healthcare, the amount you pay in taxes to subsidize loopholes and paybacks for campaign contrtibutions?

Sent by Larry | 8:40 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader said in the past, "It has to get worse before it gets better". Well it has certainly gotten worse. Perhaps he can make it better this time around with a viable third party.

The American voters get what they vote for. I hope they actually stop and listen to what he is saying instead of just going along with the herd of the arrogantly ignorant driven by masters of corporate greed.

Sent by Charles D Hartik | 9:18 PM ET | 02-25-2008

It's not Nader running that's the tragedy. It's that he doesn't even use his run to speak out about the single most important issue that is raised by his candidacy. In fact, he doggedly avoids discussing it.

The Key Issue Suspiciously Missing from Ralph Nader's "Table"

Sent by SystemsThinker | 10:05 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I truly believe that Ralph Nader has a longer term vision than most people can see. In fact, I'm starting to see that what can seem like a setback (Bush) in the short term can lead to a greater good in the long term. Ralph Nader has, unlike the same-as-usual politics of Obama and Clinton, never waivered on his message and politics. His knowledge of facts is amazing. His consistent and persistent campaigning against corporate control of everything, voting reform, insurance reform are consistent and have influenced the campaigning of Obama and Clinton.

While Obama brags about the amount of money he has received and Clinton begs for more to match, the two of them have disenchanted me. In debate after debate, ridiculous questions were asked and neither took it upon themselves to address more critical issues like global warming. What started as exciting potential turned into more petty politics as usual.

I'm so glad Nader FINALLY decided to run because my voice is not heard without him. He campaigns on what he believes in and continues to fight when no one else bothers anymore.

Sent by Eileen | 11:03 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Thank You Ralph for running again. Now I won't be stuck with a choice between the "evil of two lessers"!

Sent by william stuber | 11:12 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader has done a great deal of good for the American people in the past. Others have already stated the pros and cons of his running, my question is this: In the highly unlikely possibility he wins the election, how does he intend to force Congress to his will? He's condemned both parties as corrupt, does he intend to lower himself to dealing with those he finds morally inferior to himself? We've had eight years of a zealot in charge, we don't need another zealot of a different stripe determining the fate of the country.

Sent by John Koester | 12:30 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Why didn't anyone question Dennis Kucinich's ego? Or Mike Gravel's ego? Or Ron Paul's ego? Or more importantly, Obama's ego? (A man with 3 years of senatorial experience and oratorial skills is best qualified to lead a country?) I'm surprised that even on NPR's website, there are so many people without respect for constitutional rights, and a sufficiently open mind to listen to one of the most studious, accomplished and uncompromising minds in American history. Are you thinking, or are you just believing?

Sent by Kyle Romberg | 10:27 AM ET | 02-26-2008

To all the Nader supporters, don't forget that he takes money from the Republicans to finance his campaigns against the Dems. I have completely lost respect for Nader--all he cares about is getting into the spotlight. What could have been a legacy of public service is now just another person milking consumers dry. Now it's Nader feeding corporate interests by playing the spoiler to the potential for change.

Sent by Enrica | 11:12 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Isn't the beef with the 2.4 million people who voted for Nader and not Nader himself? He is only one man.
If the Dems are running a campaign that speaks to what people are concerned about, they have nothing to worry about,right?
Nader, you, me, we all have the right to run for president (having met the qualifications) and present the platform we want. If I like what you have to say or you like what i have to say, then we vote for each other.
Also, what did Nader have to do with all the Dems who voted for George W. Bush? Seems Bush spoiled Nader's bid. What did Nader have to do with Bush winning in 2004? Who spoiled the Dems then?

Sent by Sammy Chong | 11:53 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Nader is to America what Socrates was to Ancient Greece.

Sent by Babette Hogan | 12:27 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Perhaps I'm older than many contributing to this blog. I can clearly recall how the publication of his book, "Unsafe at Any Speed" in 1965 set the course for his career as a 'spoiler.' As has been the case subsequently, the book contained some good ideas, but it made US automotive engineers and marketers far more conservative for years to come. His insistence on the total rightness of his position suggests an inflexibility and tunnel vision that would make George W. Bush look like a piker. His inability to see his true overall contribution is sad. He could have done so much more by being a bit more reflective and not so overreaching.

Sent by John Baum | 12:42 PM ET | 02-26-2008

If you want to see a REAL farce, watch Clinton and Obama "debate." Watch Pelosi fail to uphold the law by taking impeachment off the table. Watch the Democratic-controlled Congress fail to end the war.

Jurgen Vsych, San Francisco
Author "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?"

Sent by Jurgen Vsych | 12:48 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Sent by Sammy Chong: What did Nader have to do with Bush winning in 2004? Who spoiled the Dems then?

Excellent point, Sammy.

I'm a Democrat. And I was disappointed when Gore lost. But I soon tired of Democrats making excuses why they lost. The more excuses Democrats made, the more they sounded like losers.

Until I became embarrassed to say I was a Democrat.

Democrats have spent the past seven years making excuse, and coming up with little alternative to their complaints the way Washington ran things.

Now, moderate and conservative Democrats are finding John McCain that much more appreciable. We are the Democrats who did not become ashamed of being Americans.

And this Barack guy from Hawaii, where does he and his wife get off thinking that WE need saving? And where does this guy get off being arrogant enough to think that WE need saving by someone like him? Where does Barack Obama get off suggesting that our lives were miserable?

And the whole far left wing Billaracky scenario is yet another of the Democratic Party's litany of excuses for why the party is a failure, continues to be a failure, and has no foreseeable future. Except to find blame in someone else for their own problems.

So, Sammy, this is one of many Democrats who will be voting for John McCain.

And to Mitt Romney, many of us hope you are still open for the Vice Presidential position.

A McCain/Romney ticket appeals to many of us moderate and conservative Democrats who are embarrassed by the far left Billaracky wing of the Democratic Party.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 1:14 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I agree with Mr. Fallows that Nader inserting himself into this election is a farce. Does he think with eight months left before the election that he can win? Let's be realistic here. I think he did it for multiple reasons. One is he likes being considered a spoiler like in 2000. Secondly by getting some publicity he will now be able to charge higher speaking fees because let's face it he hasn't really received much attention in the last four years. Lastly by doing this he'll probably get some publishing house to give him a high six figure maybe even seven figure book deal. At one time he cared about the American consumer, but this stunt shows me he's just an ego-maniac looking out for himself.

Sent by Tom H | 2:58 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I just want to say that I listened to the interview with Mr. Nader and was very disappointed with his answer to the woman who asked why he didn't just run for the Senate or House. He says he wants to reach a lot of people. I would point out to Mr. Nader that Barak Obama, in his 1st term has far exceeded Mr. Nader in reach and in the race for the White House. I like Mr. Nader's message and agree with him so much. But I'm disappointed that he is so short sighted. My advice, if I may, is for him to get elected and then launch his presidential campaign. Take a page from the book of the so-called younger, naive, less experienced candidate - Barak Obama. He and Hillary Clinton would be wise to watch and learn from him.

Sent by Dan Hardman | 11:41 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Ralph Nader is the only candidate that is talking about the REAL change we need in this country. Nader wants to model our health care system after Canada's, he wants taxes to fall on corporation and not onto us, the individuals. Who doesn't have a credit card or a cellphone? Hardly anyone these days. Ralph Nader wants to change the way credit cards and cellphones are regulated. Credit card companies can raise your interest rate even if you were late on a credit card issued by a DIFFERENT company. Cell phone companies can charge anything they want and fees and taxes for the most obscure things and get away with it. Payday loans which can take advantage of a bad situation that someone has fallen into and charge well over 100% interest. This is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg and there is soo much more reform needed, but these are some of the more common thing that face the average American today. A vote for Nader is a vote REAL change.

Sent by Adrian Hernandez | 2:21 PM ET | 02-27-2008

Does anyone know if Ralph Nader has ever explained why he did not run in the Democratic primaries? He says that neither of the two major parties address the issues that Americans care about. If he's a serious candidate, rather than a spoiler,why didn't he run in the Democratic primaries and address them?

Sent by greg moore | 7:16 PM ET | 02-27-2008

Re: Greg.
The democratic party does not want to address issues that will alienate their contributors. So far they are getting away with it because most in their party want to believe it when candidate say words like hope and dream, instead of allowing themselves to think about what is really going on. Mr. Nader knows what the outcome would be in a primary when he can not spend what he doesn't take. If he takes, he becomes just another pawn of those giving. This speaks volumes of our political system. As an independant he does not have to "conform" to what is perceived as a process of demoracy. His record of accomplishments for the people should dictate what his intntions are. But you have to look for them because there are those who do not want you to take them into consideration. Whereas the other three speak for those who have paid to play, hoping to continue leading the people on. And you should be able to see where that has led us.

Sent by Larry | 10:19 PM ET | 02-29-2008

Dickipedia has an entry up on Nader. Pretty funny and shows how he's not the teddy-bear hugging martyr we all think he is.

http://dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Ralph_Nader

Definitely worth the read.

Sent by TseeBaeng | 3:17 AM ET | 03-09-2008

For those that said look at votenadar.org to know more about this and him and his issues.... well he is INCREDIBLY vague on his issues. Which is pretty crazy because his positions (if discernable) seem completely undoible and illogical particularly that if for some crazy reason he was elected president he would constantly be blocked by the house and senate and he woul dbe a permanantly lame duck president. A worthless waste of time president.

Sent by David | 5:20 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Go Nader! Maybe if corporate democrats had stronger candidates Nader wouldn't be able to "steal" any of "their" votes....

Sent by Lucas Vincent | 10:14 AM ET | 04-25-2008