I feel the entire election process needs an overhaul, selection by popular vote alone. Forget all this delegate stuff.could that ever happen with two parties in office? It seems the present process inhibits the ability of an independent from making it? Can you speak to this? How will your candicacy be affected?

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

Dear Mr. Nader, Quit running for president. I blame you for us having Bush the first time. You are not going to win, so why bother throwing a wrench into this year's election. I hope every one is smart enought not to vote for you. If you are so concerned, then run for the Senate and do something constructive thru the regular means of election and quit doing these stupid runs for the White House.

Sent by Annie | 3:42 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I wonder if he joined the club and played silly, useless political games like visiting a couple states where votes supposedly matter and ignoring the ones where the votes supposedly don't, attacking anyone who says the exact same things that he says at every prez. debate, and, oh, I don't know, throw in a few sex scandals or an illegal war here and there, then maybe people would think it's okay for him to exercise his right as a citizen and as a HUMAN BEING to stand for something other than a popularity contest when REAL LIVES are at stake. Nader will get my vote, and if I'm the only one he gets, I will only be prouder than ever.

Sent by Natalie Smith | 3:42 PM ET | 02-25-2008

As we all know, Mr.Nader did not do so well in past elections, Since big business and powers that be try to ensure that your common man thoughts and initiatives stay your thoughts and initiatives, would you consider running as a vice president, just so your views and good ideas could actually reach the people?

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

Thanks for those great words. I actually voted for Nader in 2000 and I'm still sorry about it. I think he should just stay out if he knows what's good for the country right now. I actually agreed with Hillary Clinton on this one.

Sent by Charlene Flowers | 3:53 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader - forget it. It's one thing to run against a man who couldn't connect with us until he got out of politics and then run against one with big hair long sentences and not even a remote chance of connecting with anyone ... I had a "Nader" bumper sticker on my 1996 One-Ton Dually then (I enjoy living the oxymoron life ...) - Now it's time to stay the heck out of this - Leave the race as it is meant to be - clear cut - Grandpa Establishment vs Young Upstart. This middle aged white male already knows who he's voting for (oh - hint - I traded in the Dually for a Prius).

Sent by Ron Bero jr. | 3:56 PM ET | 02-25-2008

yeah, I was ticked at Nader for running in 2000 but by 2004 I saw his point. Besides, what do you do if you have confidence in neither candidate, sit the election out? I'd rather my vote count for something.

Sent by William Spadel | 4:30 PM ET | 02-25-2008

How is Nader funded? Through public funding? I hate to be so cynical but is this about making a personal living rather than adding anything of substance. It seems he could add something of substance in many many ways. I would be offended to have him on the Democratic forum...got to walk the talk and create his own.

Sent by LR | 4:32 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Didn't 50 million Americans vote for George Bush in 2000? Are none of them to blame for Gore's loss? There were 3 candidates in the race: Bush, Gore and Nader, and they finished in that order (although not in the popular vote). Kudos to Nader for running and expressing his views. Americans need to wake up and realize an election with only 2 candidates is not an actual democratic election.

Sent by Jeff | 4:33 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I Think Nader sends an important message regardless of winning. We need canditates who are not tied to corporations and to lobbyists. Also in order to have real honest elections, we must do away with the electorial college. When the Founding Fathers came up with this, citizens were not nearly as educated as they are now. We need a real change. Nader offers the vision for this and to help keep these messages alive.

Sent by David Carlin | 4:44 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Before blaming Ralph Nader for the 2000 election, the Dem's need to ask why Al Gore didn't win his own home state in that contest(which would have given him the presidency) or win over the 250,000 Democrats in Florida who voted for GWB. Time to look in the mirror perhaps?

Sent by Gil Bleidorn | 4:53 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Diversity is one of the most important factors in maintaining healthy systems; while we are just becoming to understand its importance in the ecosystems of the world, in regards to both specie and genetic populations (which retain the systems health through flexibility in response), it still somehow seems anathema to suggest that our political system is NOT a healthy democracy... Demos, the "people" or the "many", and kratos, or "rule", is the Greek etymology of "democracy" - if you went to a restaurant, and were only offered two menu items, would you consider yourself to have "many" options, the reflection of the "many" tastes or needs of a diverse population? There are important questions we need to ask ourselves about our political system, and how it is a tool to provide the "many" with a voice - I see nothing inherently, politically OR morally, wrong with Nader's presidential bids, past or present. At least it brings us to a dialog on issues that may never otherwise be raised...

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

Wolf Blitzer writes, "In 2000, he did win 96,837 votes in Florida, a state that George W. Bush carried by only 537 votes. Many of those Nader votes no doubt would have gone to Al Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot." What an understatement. Who could deny Nader's role as THE spoiler of 2000 (and we suffered so many years since)? This man who ran on the "Green Card" cost us the opportunity to have possibly the greenest president ever. Please, Nader, stay away. You've done enough damage to the electoral process last a lifetime.

Sent by Hal Ott | 5:09 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader's United Statesd citizenship should be revoked. He has done nothing to enhance this country for a long time. In the last two elections, he made a substantial contribution to the election of George Bush which is nothing of which to be proud. This can only be yet one more effort on his part to massage his insatiable ego. Nothing about his candidacy is good for the country. Stay out of it. You're not welcome. Take your priceless First Amendment rights and go sit with them on the sidelines.

Sent by Martha McLeod | 5:11 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Thanks for the choice, Ralph.

The hidden truth is that the blame for Bush should be placed on the Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida not the Democrats who voted for Nader. There were more of the former than the latter.

Sent by Eric Kinman | 5:17 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I read Ralph Nader's book "Crashing the Party", this is a man who has great intelligence and genuinely cares for the American people, I strongly agree his opinion that we need more then a 2 party system, however, I think his motivation should be put back into the places it seems more suited for, getting things started at a grass root level, thats where his strengths have seemed to flourish.

Sent by Noelle Windrush | 5:19 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader has become a parody of what's wrong with our political system, not a symbol of change. He's all ego and ideology, not ideas. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with some of what he stands for, but compromise is not something Nader understands. Like it or not, nothing will substantially change in our political system if one does not understand the power of compromise. Look at the last time a president tried to run our country by fiat - like the past 7 years. Ralph, can I call you that? If you really want the system to change for the better, support a democratic candidate - who actually has a chance to win - and become an ally not a monkey wrench.

Sent by Scott H. | 5:19 PM ET | 02-25-2008

It's a shame that we accuse candidates who are not Democratic or Republican front-runners for "throwing a wrench" into the race. I was under the impression that anyone should be able to run for President, no matter who they are or when they decide to do it. It's also a shame that people view Nader as a detractor of votes. Democratic voting is about selecting the candidate that will be represent your views. If the Democratic or Republican candidate does not fit with what you believe, I would hope that (as a little-d democratic supporter) you would vote for someone like Ralph Nader. Instead of blaming Nader for the Democrats failure to win an election, we should be more critical of the Democratic Party and why they have alienated enough voters to cost them elections.

Sent by Matt Frierdich | 5:24 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Pat Paulsen's candidacy was not a side show, it was center ring.
http://www.paulsen.com

Sent by Noma | 5:52 PM ET | 02-25-2008

What's wrong with an actually accomplished public servant running for president? Ralph Nader has got a long, strong record of ACTUAL CHANGE for the good of the public. He's not disingenuous. He's intelligent and well-spoken. Okay, so he can be a bit of a dog with a bone at times, but wouldn't it actually be nice to have someone fighting for great domestic policy for the American people for a change?

I'm glad Nader is in it. I hope other bright, passionate, accomplished public servants are encouraged by Mr. Nader's presence and are inspired to jump in and add a different voice to our political system. Mr. Nader has a lot to offer, but what do you expect from a nation that likes its food and entertainment highly processed, glossy, and fast? It's going to want the same out of its political system. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work that way.

Thank you, Mr. Nader, for sticking it out. That's how change really comes about. Tenacity and roll-up-your-sleeves-get-down-and-dirty-hard work.

Sent by Margarita Maldonado | 5:56 PM ET | 02-25-2008

This is silly. Nader didn't lose the race for Gore in 2000. Those who would have voted for Nader would have voted for Bush or Gore or, in my case, would have voted for no one. it's absurd to think that if you're liberal you should vote for a democrat and if you're conservative you should vote for a republican. I, for one (and hopefully not the only one), will not cave into "the best of the two" option and opt for a third and better option. Will they win, probably not. However the more who do vote for the 3rd party member the more voice they will have in future for themselves and third parties and perhaps someday these unfair election laws will give way to third parties through tightening campaign finance spending. The less money one has to be concerned with getting the more that will join the race with a chance and perhaps, hey, even get some of the democrats and republicans to have to revamp their policies to more liberal or conservative ones in order to catch up with the third parties who, i feel, are the ones really leading the movements that the republicans and democrats are leaching. I could stand on a soap box forever about this, but i'll leave it with this. When you compromise your ideals the ideals over time have the ability to be more compromised in the future. Stand for what you think is right now and don't let anyone speak for you.

Sent by marc eriksen | 6:14 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Surely this time people will be aware that a vote for Nadar is a vote for McCain. And as such, is a vote for a protracted war in Iraq as well as whatever other disasters may result from seeking a military solution to our foreign policy challanges (which is my main fear about McCain). As Hillary might say, shame on you Ralph Nadar.

Sent by Anne | 6:18 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I recently watched a Frontline on Mr. Nader. Prior to that program I believed him to be a wacked out peacenik who was looking to create a giant drum circle in America. I have reversed my opinion 100%. Mr. Nader is someone who is against the current big business candidates, regardless of party. He is concerned about you and me, the little people. Instead of having this competition about what is best for you and me, it is a struggle between Rebub or Dem... Making it all about beat Bush at all costs (which has become beat Bush's party at all costs). I will vote for who I believe has an interest in improving America. I will not vote for Obama- I do not know who he is fronting. I will not vote for Hillary, as I have seen what she stands for. McCain is just a Democrat wearing Republican clothing as far as I can tell. Nader has a track record of FIGHTING big business in the name of the consumer. In the name of you and me, kids. If you look at his track record, he has already done more for US than any of the other puppets running for the office. This conservative is voting for Nader

Sent by Marty S | 6:24 PM ET | 02-25-2008

If you don't like any of the people running for president, please do me a favor and leave it BLANK. Thats what I was going to do until Nader decided to show up. This voting for "the lesser of two evils" is something we all need to STOP, RIGHT NOW. Don't vote for the jerk that you know has a chance at winning, this isn't gambling on the Super Bowl. Vote with you heart. We deserve better people like Nader, and Bill Russell

Sent by Gary Williams | 6:31 PM ET | 02-25-2008

With the disgusting choices available to us, why not Nader?
What does Obama stand for? A catchphrase and little else.
Hillary? Socialized health care and whatever else it takes to get her elected.
McCain, a true flip-flopper, a man who stands on both sides of the isle. And he might just have more skeletons in his closet.
How about Huckabee? The Evangelical religous-right candidate but nobody elses. And don't look to closely at his past record.
Nader, incorruptible, constant, and intelligent. No wonder the powers that be don't like him. Definately not presidential material. Did he cost Gore the presidency. No, Gore cost Gore the presidency. (Gore may have actually won but didn't have the backbone to challange Bush when he bullied it away from him)

Sent by Rico | 6:33 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader not only gets mounds of hatred and resentment thrown at him by disgruntled Democrats but the same ol tired questions lobbed at him by Wolf Blitzer, Russert, et al. No one seriously believes that he was a "spoiler" in 2000 so what's the beef? Nader puts issues on the agenda that the Dems have been running from for years. And the real political differences between him and the Dems have been growing over the years. So all these reactions and accusations say more about those who make them than it does about old Nader. Nader calls the Dems out on their hyprocrisy &, to be specific, for being pulled to the right by the Clintons. Yet the "progressives" who complain about the Dems being soft and for caving in to the GOP are the ones with animated hostility. I am not endorsing Nader. My point is that the furrowed brows and clenched fists he gets from Dems are more about them than they are about him. He has the right to run for office so what are they complaining about? And the issues he runs with (the Dems caving on the war, silence on poverty, living wage, impeachment, etc) are issues alot more real than the ones being debated by Clinton & Obama. Again, I'm not endorsing nader in this election. But its important for the Democratic Party to look at why they're more prone to take out out their anger against the representative of 2% of the votes than direct it more productively, say, at the GOP, or even the Dems.

Sent by peter de simone | 6:34 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Anybody who wastes a vote on Nader is a MORON. Why don't those voters just go ahead and vote for a warmonger.

Sent by Mary | 6:34 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader: Why don't you try paying your dues? Run for Congress and try to make changes in policy. Running repeatedly for president just messes up the country by making it easier for Republicans/conservatives to win.

Sent by Ann Patterson | 6:56 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Having seen Nader's announcement on Meet the Press, I realized how much the leading candidates are indeed skirting all the main issues. It's possible they'll do something about some of them, but probably we need a guy like Nader to throw some realilty into an otherwise rarified process.

Sent by tom simms | 6:57 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Amen to Annie!!!

Sent by Jan | 6:58 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Do you even vote? Or, it might be better to ask, do you vote with any concept of any philosophy, any set of personal beliefs? Or, is your guide to the polling place who you think everyone else will support?

It is an absurdity to suggest that Nader just pops up every four years to get some attention. The literally hundreds of active groups he's founded and sponsors attests to his round the clock work.

Hey, I support little of what Nader proposes. But I welcome him to the race. He's for the intelligent voters in that he actually discusses issues and lets us know where he stands.

I'm sure you'll want some pale imitation of a statesman, some Obama/Hillary/McCain type. Someone who doesn't say a damn thing about anything.

That's who most will support with their vote. That's how we got Bush.

This year, Nader and Ron Paul are the two statesmen who have arisen. Both should be welcomed to the race by any voter as both discuss issues and have a track record of backing up what they say with action.

And, why can't you shoo away the door to door callers yourself?

Sent by John P Slevin | 7:00 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Concerning Ralph Nader's run for the presidency. Tell your listeners how many registered democrats voted for Mr. Nader in Florida and get over Gore's loss. Shame on Cokie Roberts' comment about Mr. Nader's ego. When will NPR report on the candidates, considering only the issues and not who raises the most money? I would like to hear the answers from all of the candidates including communists, socialists, libertarians, etc. Do you dare let us pick a president for what they may say and not by money, money, money. Ask Mr. Nader all of the questions you have asked the republican and democratic candidates and report his answers with equal respect and then you will see CHANGE.

Sent by PHILIP BERNSTEIN | 7:04 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Hasn't been hiding anywhere the last 8 years. He's been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and has written at least three books in the last 6 years. Also he writes weekly commentary at www.nader.org .The better question is where has the Pres been, where have the "Talking Heads" been. And the population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the easy route and don't THINK DEEP, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what's going on takes work, in a Corporate controlled State.
Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, has been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue DNC myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow Countrymen. More power to your ideas. www.votenader.org. And by the way, Happy Birthday!.....All the rest of you, buckle-up

Sent by Seb McG | 7:08 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I'm disturbed by the reaction to Nader. At what point did competition become a bad thing for a competition. This process is begining to mirror the Bowl championship series in College football. How dare we as American citizens discourage a fellow American from injecting new and intelligent ideas into the race. It's our right as voters to view every candidate in order to make a choice. Those who criticize Nader for running can't truly want what's best for the country.

Sent by Terry Brown | 7:10 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I have met Mr. Nader in person and if there were one person I would ideally have as a President, it would be him. He is, quite simply, the single humblest, caring, intelligent man of politics I have ever met. That being said, he stand no practical chance of winning the election, especially in a country as large as the United States, and in many ways serves as an unintentional spoiler in favor of the GOP. I hate to reduce politics to the concept of "greater good", but another Republican Administration is a frightful prospect.

Sent by Saul Cardona-Luciano | 7:11 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Nader is the only one worthy of the title!

Sent by jared gillett | 7:13 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader has done more than just "some good work." The legislation he's championed, as a private citizen, is more impressive than that of any U.S. President in he past century. What's wrong with giving people more choices in presidential politic? None of the four remaining candidates, Republican or Democratic, stand in favor issues supported by the majority of Americans (decreasing the bloated military budget, establishing a single payer health insurance plan for all, cracking down on corporate crime and welfare, etc.).

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

There must me a House or Senate seat that Nader could compete for. He wants the Democrats to stand up against modern capitalism and the military industrial complex but the American people have yet to, in any substantial way, see these as topics worthy of discussion. You have representatives like Ron Paul and Berrnie Sanders in the Senate talking about those issues but the public as a whole is oblivious to why Nader is running. By entering the race Nader's whisper will be impossible to hear at the Metalica concert which will be the 08 election.

Sent by mike edwards | 7:25 PM ET | 02-25-2008

With no perceptible voter base to support his presidential bid in 2008, Ralph Nader's campaign does seem hopelessly quixotic. That having been said, I will be voting for him.

I've been told that by some that I'm just throwing my vote away, but I don't think that's quite accurate. I am undoubtedly voting for someone who's a spent political force. To truly throw my vote away, however, I'd have to cast my ballot for a candidate in whom I had no confidence or trust--a nominee, say, of either the Democratic or the Republican party, the latter having conducted both an unspeakable war in Iraq (with many atrocities committed by sanctioned independent contractors, Mr. Ridley) and an unconscionable siege against civil rights at home while the former stood idly by as it all happened.

Sent by David Lawrence Reed | 7:31 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Why are you running you have no chance you just want to shorten up the votes for Clinton and Barrack?

Sent by shane | 7:33 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Congratulations to Mr. Nader, woe to the author of this article.
Ralph only enters the scene every four years? Are we forgetting his consumer activism? This is the man who created more political action groups to influence more levels of government than anyone else, and he did it all in defense of the common man.
Do not dismiss the power of a third party candidate. The Republicans started out as a third party, and that's not the only way a minor party can affect the system. It was a minor socialist party that first advocated social reforms such as social security, their candidate won a decent amount of support and got his ideas out, and even though he did not win, many of his proposals were adopted by the winning party. More recently, look to the 1992 election. Mr. Perot made balancing the federal budget this major issue, and if you look back to that time, it was not an issue Mr. Clinton supported. Suddenly, Perot won a few popular votes, and fiscal responsibility becomes a major part of Clinton's legacy.
Don't think Mr. Nader entertains the notion of winning, or that he enjoys being a spoiler. He's trying to get his ideas into the public sphere, hardly sinister.

Sent by Ethan | 7:35 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Now We'll Hear The TRUTH! My Dad introduced me to Ralph Nader, 1964. I've been a listener since.
Can't Wait! HONEST DEBATE! Thank You, Ralph Nader!
May God Bless Your Public Service!

Sent by Pittsburgh Public Servant--Pat | 7:35 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Why can't any new reporter discuss
Nader's platform? They just repeat ad
nousium that he can't win?

Don't blame Nader because the DEMs lost
to Bush! Blame the DEMs Platform and
people !

If you don't like Nader it should be
because what he says is bad ! Not
Because the US voting system is rigged
so we are forced to vote for the Lesser
of two evils !!!!!!

1)Read the Declaration of independance
(Focus on the second paragraph)

2) Look at what the REP-DEM Monopoly
has done to America!

3) And think! Isn't it time we made
real change in America. So we don't
go Bankrupt!

Nader and Ron Paul are the only
candidates who make sense.

What's more important to you?
Your Party or America ?

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

Nader bashing is a necessary prerequisite for chasing down a job in an Obama or Clinton administration. Nader is what Southern racists used to call an "outside agitator," busy reminding people being herded to the polls that they will be sold out by politicians too close to corporate power to deal with their credit card debt servitude or other daily problems, meddling where he just doesn't "belong."
Ageism has replaced racism, but, otherwise, the rules of exclusion are very much the same.

Sent by steve conn | 7:54 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ron Paul sideshow? That's DOCTOR Ron Paul.

Maybe Mr. Ridley ought to go do some research and see what is really going on. Maybe he ought to go to the Ron Paul rallies that outdraw every other GOP candidate (1800+ in Austin this past weekend!). Maybe he ought to understand WHY Dr. Paul has the most GOP funds on hand with ZERO debt, all of it from small donors.

Maybe he ought to see why Dr. Paul is the best candidate out there, better than Panamanchurian McCain, better than Huckabee the Preacher, better than "If ya smell what Barack is cookin'" Obama, better than Clinton Inc.

As for Nader, I quote Rocky the Flying Squirrel: "That trick never works!"

Sent by Tannim | 8:03 PM ET | 02-25-2008

You've entirely missed the point. Ralph Nader does not run to win the Presidency. He does not try to "take the top prize". He is trying to get the parties to acknowledge and address important issues that they either ignore or pay lip service to and then ignore every four years. He is trying to get into debates and call the candidates on their politics of avoidance. He is trying to get on ballots to scare Dem's into addressing the issues that are life and death important to all of us. In Ralph's eyes, that is the purpose of third parties in presidential politics.

Those bitter dem's who claim that he is in it soley for his ego are ignoring 40 years of public service where his ego always took a back seat to the cause of social justice. Look closely and you will see that the parties will use all the usual mariginalization techniques to attack Nader about his "ego" and his "age" because they refuse to acknowledge that the Democratic party no longer cares about Social justice, only taking votes from Republicans at any cost. The real blames for GW Bush are bad Democratic campaigning and the people who voted for Bush, not the people who voted for Nader. When you vote for Nader it's because you want the U.S. to have a better government, not to feed Nader's ego.

Sent by Joe Rosado | 8:05 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I love these "Nader lost the election for Democrats" comments... More independents voted for Bush in both the 00 and 04 election and the Dems. This country is a democracy and the election for the most important office in the US should never come down to the lesser of 2 evils. I think if more people did their own research on each candidate instead of relying on the MSM to regurgitate it to them, Nader would be their first choice.

Sent by Mathew | 8:08 PM ET | 02-25-2008

As relates to Nader and the Dem faithful a certain thought has been stirring in the recesses of my brain regarding how certain political apparatuses (apparati?LOL) are capable of manipulating people to vote against their interests.

What's particularly interesting here is that the Dem loyalists know full well the story of how it is that the Repub machine gets folks to do just this but somehow those Dem faithful deem themselves immune to this possibility.

Now let's look at this.

Just a cursory examination of what Nader proposes is in fact more closely allied with the vast majority of what the Dem supporters advocate for than the type of proposals put forth by Obama-Clinton et al. If you just ask them to vote on these proposals they would by a large margin vote for what Ralph advocates. And yet...

Pretty amazing isn't it?

Sent by Michael | 8:18 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I voted for Bush in 2000. Had I been aware of Nader and his work, I would have voted for him instead. I was very happy to see him running in 2004 and he won my vote. It's time we had someone on our side. Nader '08!

Sent by Miguel de la Torre | 8:19 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Outstanding, John. Just the right touch.

Sent by Brendan Keefe | 8:25 PM ET | 02-25-2008

This article brings out levels of sadness, disappointment, and anger that I normally reserve for Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News Hour. The fact that NPR, a supposed progressive station, is repeating the same media garbage with half-truths and propaganda is a statement that no media is free from ignorance. Even a half-hearted attempt to uncover the true reasons for Nader's presidential bid would reveal that "self-indulgence", ego, and a desire to be part of the political grind are not his motivators. His whole life Nader has fought as a consumer advocate and for the "little-man" with no request of fame, why would hubris suddenly become a motive? His candidacy enlivens democracy; a two party system is not a true democratic system and we, as a country, should not bastardize those exercising their citizen rights. If my vote is a reflection of my opinion, then why should it be considered "thrown away" when I do not act like a sheep and vote with the masses? That's not the type of freedom I signed up for.

Sent by Katherine Alfredo | 8:25 PM ET | 02-25-2008

If only we could embrace someone who actually cares about us, the 200 million plus people who make america the strangled/sheep followers we have become. I wish at times I was old enough to have been involved in the united and devided organizations and protests of the 40's 50's and 60's but alas I put my 2 cents in through the keyboard and wait for the mega-corporations to elect the next president for me:-(

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

It's unfortunate that such an astute person as Mr. Ridley (as well as many of his readers, it seems) completely miss the point of Ralph Nader's candidacy. It is obviously not to actually win the "Highest Office in the Land" (an accomplishment which has been thoroughly sullied by the buffoon who currently occupies the Oval Office) but to inject a much-needed different point of view into the political debate. This country is sadly mired in the two-party system. Fresh voices are not welcome and individuals not under the Democrat/Republican umbrella are left out in the rain. And what is it with presidential campaigns that span almost two years? This country is obsessed with insufferably long and tedious campaigns. It's not surprising that only the extremely well-funded can seriously enter and remain in the fray. Canada, our good and wise neighbour to the north, usually conducts its entire national electoral process in under two months! I applaud Nader's coming onto the election scene at this "late date". If only his sensible approach could effect some permanent change. Ralph Nader's presidential bid, whatever its shortcomings, represents a breath of fresh air in the stale and claustrophobic confines of U.S. politics.

Sent by Don Hamlyn | 8:38 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader is the most qualified candidate for president of the united states. it's too bad for average americans not to realize that Nader would truly serve their needs better than any other candidate. After all do people realize he recommended we lock the cockpit doors of commercial airlines...in the 1980s. Wake up America. Ralph Nader is proactive and progressive, not like our current and past presidents who have been reactive and transgressive.

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

I can't believe that in a democracy that claims to be recognized as "the largest in the in the world" there are such nonsense and non-democratic commentaries. In a healthy democracy, every citizen has the rigth of running for president and should be allowed to exercise it without much fuss. Fact #1: Ralph Nader has done more for the American people and the advancement of democratic rights than any of the current (and recent past) candidates to the White House. Fact #2: Ralph Nader has far more integrity than any of the current candidates. It is very reasonable to expect that, if elected, Ralph Nader would work ceaselessly for the greater interest of the vast majority of Americans. I applaud the courage of Ralph Nader, who bravely decides to enter the ultimate democratic competition one more time, despite those kind of under-the-belt attacks from the media.

Sent by Giuseppe Taibi | 8:41 PM ET | 02-25-2008

The only reason Nadar doesn't do better is because the American people, who by and large believe in his platform, are not courageous enough to vote for him, but instead continue to lamely pick a 'lessor to evils' and then complain about their looser choices. And for angry democrats who continue another false propaganda idea that he somehow 'takes' votes from them - I just say you need to grow up. If the wimpy democrats actually stood for something and not just talked about it then they should have more than enough overwhelming support. But they don't. Because they are simply pawns of the greedy money corporate militarism establishment. So let's all join together and vote for Nadar, all of who want a true departure from the broken system, and stand up for the only real choice out there, and send a message.

Sent by Bobby | 8:44 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Ridley, you are disrespecting the most intelligent man in America and you have entirely missed the point that Ralph Nader makes each time he makes a bid for the presidency. His point is to keep our population from completely nodding off under the poppy-field spell that keeps Americans rolling over and accepting the status quo as "good enough" -- when, in fact, our political system is horribly broken. The two-party system leaves us with little choice every election year -- and whoever is finally elected really isn't the choice of the majority of people...only the lesser of two evils. I am disappointed that you have had the opportunity to visit with this great man and walked away with a youthful arrogance and disdain instead of hearing the real lesson in his message. It is NADER who bears the real message of Hope, not Obama, who refused to even meet with him.

Sent by Peggy Bair | 8:45 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Thank you Mr. Nader, for running for president. You didn't cause Bush to win the election in 2000, and certainly not his re-election in 2006. What you did was to tighten the 2000 race to the point that the fraudulent chad-riddled voting machines and non-standard ballots in use were exposed and unable to hide behind the normally vast numbers of votes. One would think that the 2000 race would have been a wake-up call to Americans to repair the failing voting system, a right which we hold more dear than any other. It's been 8 years now. If the Democrats wanted to fix the system, they had the chance. Now Democrats: If you don't want Nader to run, simply start taking up the issues which are important to his supporters!

Sent by Raymond M. de Groat | 8:47 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Ridley, Ralph Nader has done more than "good work," he has done exceptional work on behalf of the people of this country. Before you dismiss a man of Nader's stature, I suggest you watch "An Unreasonable Man." Ralph has more experience and more substance than McCain, Obama, and Clinton combined.

Sent by I Like Ralph | 8:53 PM ET | 02-25-2008

the dems and the repubs have both sold out to corporate america. Nader tells it like it is. Hillary and Obama play the political games, but leave those of us with a clue about fascism cringing. How much, if any, discussion have Hillary or Obama had with us about such things as the patriot act, habeas corpus, unitary executive, signing statements, torture, Iraq war, WMD, Bush's dictator E.O, and oh so many more?

Any takers? Don't you want to know these two's history on this? How about their "platforms"? Even if they have bad reps on these issues, and plan to carry on in Bush style-you don't think they'll give up their newly won (by bush) power, do you-couldn't they at least PRETEND to be shocked by where this country is at?

Sent by malcolm drake | 9:14 PM ET | 02-25-2008

newsflash and lesson in the US constitution, your votes for president don't count for jack so how did Nader get Bush in office? He has garnered a grand total of 0 electoral votes in his entire political career. Even Ross Perot who has been considered a Bush spoiler garnered 19,000,000 popular votes and received 0 electoral votes. The electoral college picks the president, not the people, your vote doesn't count. Instead of coming out every four years to throw your vote away get involved in primary and caucus voting, vote in local elections, odd year elections, and the others where your vote counts.

Sent by bryan w. newport ky | 9:18 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I think it's great that a citizen (even a nut)can actually run for president if they want to. If the Democrats are worried that a nut job fringe candidate can derail the hopes of the party, then they don't have much business running. By their statements, the front runners have validated Nader's candidacy as a force of change. Nader knows he doesn't have a chance but he can force the Party to recognize that there are other issues that are not being discussed by the mainstream candidates.

Sent by Bill | 9:21 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I'm kind of laughing to myself when I read of all your short sighted comments asking Ralph to "give it up and go home."

I'm quite surprised that none of you have figured out what Ralph has actually been doing all these years. Do you really believe that after the election, Ralph just shuffles back home and sits around watching American Idol until the next election rolls around.

Let me put it this way: It often takes a long time with many hands at the wheel to turn the big ship around.

Believe me, Ralph is sharp as a tack and knows what he's doing and winning the presidency is not his ultimate goal. I'm quite certain of that and if you thought it was, you've (as they say) missed the forest for the trees.

Always keep in mind - Great things come from grass roots movements and it normally takes an inspiring figure to stir them into action.

Sent by John P. Russell | 9:26 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Nader's campaign always serves a really important role, which traditional political commentators are ignorant of. He makes room for independent voters. The two party system, and it's two preening, whining parties, the democrats, and republicans, have ruined this country.

Ironically they're both owned by the same people.

The ultimate truth is, Nader is the best candidate we have had in decades, and no one believes he can be elected, which says something dark, and hopeless about our country.

Sent by Jody Sol | 9:42 PM ET | 02-25-2008

It's not about winning the election. It's about providing people with a choice. I simply will sit home and not vote if the Green party doesn't send someone up. The Demon-crats are ALL corporate whores, including the Saint Obama.

Sent by John | 10:03 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Everyone's entitled to their opinions,
but frankly the choices are dimmer than
darkness this election. Ralph sees that too. Bring it on Ralph, shake the trees!

Sent by Jen B. | 10:11 PM ET | 02-25-2008

"Nader's shown zero desire to do anything but show up to the big dance and try to score the hottest chick."

Can you blame the geek for trying? Ron Paul has more experience in "Politics" than Ralph Nader, doesn't make him any more fit to tango. Nader does have some good ideas, and may bring some good conversation to the ball, but you'd have to be a fool to give him your dance card.

Sent by nancy w. | 10:16 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader: Please quit being the spoiler. Every time you get into the race (although you know you don't have a chance of a snowball in hell) you take votes away from a viable candidate. We could have had Al Gore for the last almost eight years rather than Bush. Think about that. Think about all the harm that Bush has done, and realize that you were his enabler.

Sent by Elveta | 10:38 PM ET | 02-25-2008

If enough people voted for Nader, then perhaps the losers would quit blaming the independents and start supporting reforms like poplular vote and instant runoff.

Sent by Greg Anderson | 10:41 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I completely agreed with everything you, Obama, and Clinton have said. I heard Nader speaking on NPR today and I thought he sounded rather petulant and not grounded in reality. I also think he shares the blame, if even indirectly, for the current mess our country is in.

Sent by Danielle | 10:42 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Your "political blog" using the term "dude" excessively; a comparison to football; and a curious reference or two to your private security service doesn't convince me not to vote for Nader. He may not have the political experience, but Obama's no hmmm...how can I make this relatable for you? Ah! He's no Dan Marino, "dude." In fact, Nader would make a great Vice President to Obama or vice-versa. And like you said, he's old. He's not getting any younger and there's been no better climate for him to run than now. (Global warming ironic pun intended.) I applaud Mr. Nader's persistence. He personifies the American spirit - or at least what it once was. Feel free to send Blackwater USA over to my house if you disagree.

Sent by Naresh Kumar | 10:45 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Men like Nader remind us of how little the average person accomplishes in their lifetime, while the John Ridleys of the world serve to reinforce a feeling of ignorance and indifference. After all, when you have people who are paid good money to voice pointless opinion on subjects they know little about (read: short attention span) it's called CNN, which makes money. Surely that's worth something; at least it's worth copying, right? Just drop some quotes from popular sources and credibility is achieved - well done. I'm a little curious, John, what "good work" are you referring too? Whatever you glanced at on Wikipedia?

Sent by Keiji Kawashi | 10:46 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Ralph Hasn't been hiding anywhere the last 8 years. He's been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and has written at least three books in the last 6 years. Also he writes weekly commentary at www.nader.org .The better question is where has the Press been, where have the "Talking Heads" been. And the population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the easy route and don't THINK DEEP, settling instead for for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what' s going on takes work, in a Corporate controlled State.
Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, has been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue DNC myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow Countrymen. More power to your ideas. www.votenader.org. And by the way, Happy Birthday!.....All the rest of you, buckle-up

Sent by Seb McGarigle | 10:49 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I am curious what 'democracy' means to you. Does it mean I have no say in who represents me? Of course we don't live in a 'real' democracy, so we have to select representatives to speak for us, but do you really believe that either Clinton or Obama or McCain can actually speak for all people in this country? If so, is it because other mainstream media outlets have told you that they do?

Blaming Nader for Bush is wrong. How about we blame ourselves for not understanding the fundamentals of a democracy - anyone who voted for Nader in 2000, and especially 2004, meant it with all their heart. Don't blame Nader, maybe you should blame the Democrats for not appealing to the Left.

I voted for Nader in '00 and '04, simply because he represents me more so than any other candidate. I am not going to buy into a 'lesser of two evils' rhetoric, I will vote for who I believe is not evil. He is doing something more democratic than I think you would like to admit, and your trivializing his efforts is in itself, undermining democracy.

One more note: I am disappointed in NPR for their part in perpetuating a non-democratic, two-party system. Listen to (and perhaps report) what Ralph Nader has to say rather than giving in to the tactics of the major media conglomerates.

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

Nader should get as many votes as he can, and then right before the election, withdraw from the race and give his support to the prevailing democratic candidate. That would be a Nader candidacy I could support.

Sent by Dylan Williams | 11:07 PM ET | 02-25-2008

Mr. Nader why didn't you run for the race rather early?
The race for the presidential race for major parties has almost finished and there is no room for you.
Isn't your behavior self-centered not considering the people of the world?
U.S president today is not only to serve the us citizens but to the world,
Mr.Nader, you are a has-been, and please stick to your own business...

Sent by jerry Lim | 11:14 PM ET | 02-25-2008

John Ridley, could you perhaps address Nader's ideas -- even his reason for candidacy -- rather than senselessly belittling him. Dude...

Sent by Brett D. | 11:15 PM ET | 02-25-2008

This column reflects the sad state of much public political discussion: virtually nothing of substance. That's just what those in charge want. There are reasons to run for president in addition to the chance of winning the election. For example, raising issues that the major party candidates and media ignore. Speaking of media, it is irrelevant to refer to Nader's vote count in 2004 as an indication of public support when he received minimal media attention and was systematically excluded from debates. It just shows how much control the major parties have over the undemocratic process. The truth is that the major parties fear him being in debates for a good (to them) reason. He would win easily. Will NPR give Nader a chance to be heard? It didn't happen in 2004. NPR followed the corporate media example of excluding minor party voices. I thought the mission of public broadcasting was to give us an alternative to corporate media.

Sent by Ron | 11:43 PM ET | 02-25-2008

i don't understand how people get angry about this kind of stuff...i mean, imagine, getting mad over something that won't even play out, and then wasting your energy blogging about it and griping...i think it's good for the country and overall good for the election process, excersising and setting the example of the right run, bringing to light an example of what makes this country great...the same people who put bush in office (twice) are probably the same people who waste their energy hating the nader's of the world

Sent by alex | 11:52 PM ET | 02-25-2008

I would love to see another person run with Nadar's ideals, and Nadar play a supportive role. But, I don't see another person or organization stepping up to the plate, nor articulating the issues as well as Nadar does. . . . we should not vote out of fear, but with our hearts and minds. I'm glad he is in the race. And, encourage anyone who needs a clean breath of air to liston to him on Talk of the Nation, Feb 25 2007.

Sent by j-D Schall | 11:57 PM ET | 02-25-2008

If Ralph Nader cared about public service, he would have run for the public service commission in his state. There, he could regulate the big utilities and keep rates fair for consumers. Jeez I hope no one votes for him again.

Sent by Gita | 12:07 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Why shouldn't he run for president? Not only does everyone have the right, but why should we limit ourselves to two parties. I know everyone will say he cost the Democrats the election but if you look at the numbers every third party (the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party) "cost" Gore the election. Furthermore, Gore had to earn his votes just as Nader did. Why should votes just be handed over to someone because they have a better chance of winning? In fact, 39% if Nader's supporters were Democrats and 25% Republicans the rest would not have even come to the polls (Meet the Press 2/20/2008) or would not have voted for the major parties anyway. If Gore really wanted their votes he could have adopted some of Mr. Nader's views. Third parties are what create change, they expose the problems that the major parties over look. Ralph Nader has every right to run and deserves much more credit.

Sent by Scott | 12:17 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Ralph, Ralph, Ralph. Let it go, man. You made your point last time: there's no real difference between the way these two parties operate. We get it. The GOP and the DEMs are both pig-headed, know-it-all, hand-in-your-pocket political organizations. And we're going to try to fix that. However, in the meantime, I actually like the two Democratic candidates. If only we could get them together, other than agreeing about you.

Sent by Dorothy Shinn | 12:19 AM ET | 02-26-2008

The suggestion that Nader should not run reflects the malnourished democracy this country has.

What is this change that is lavishly proclaimed if the election in this country is set up such that the American people are continuously subjected to choosing the lesser of the two evils.

Sent by Adelaide | 12:22 AM ET | 02-26-2008

I think you're all wrong. I think Nader is the guy that we should be following. He's right on in all of his calls. Insurance, corparate dominance in WDC, consumer issues, Jobs, all of it. Even Barak is not close to his honesty and intelligence.

Even Barack looks like a compromised politician next to Nader.

Nader is an incredible person, and I trust his judgement. He has made an incredible positive impact on our country, when all the corp's and even the public laughed at him. He is a man of conviction and strength.

Nader has more integrity in his pinky, than all of the candidates combined, including Barak.

When I hear these trite remarks here, and from the politicians, it only makes me appreciate Nader's determination, honor, and incredible dedication to the truth and to our country.

Sent by joe | 12:40 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Blaming anyone who runs for president of the USA and does not win for failings of the current president is sad. It's nothing more than trolling for posts.

The problem is not Ralph Nadar.

Sent by John Rocca | 12:42 AM ET | 02-26-2008

It's not about Nader trying to win the office of President. It's about making either Clinton or Obama be a relatively progressive candidate, and forcing either of them not to concede too much to the conservative movement. Plus, if a third party wins at least 5% of the national vote, then they get federal funding, something they sorely need. And please, if the Democrats lose this time around, you can't just blame it on Nader. John McCain would literally have to be endorsed by Jesus reincarnate to win this election.

Sent by Nick Crosby | 12:57 AM ET | 02-26-2008

I like Ralph's work and, at least, part of his ethic. The accusations of "vote-stealing" causing us to end with the present "prez", well, it isn't a fair or honest assessment, in my view. I wanted Buchannon in '00, but, Gore laid the count challenge. To "overhaul" the electoral system means a constitutional amendment (duh). The two party duopoly is, yes, a matter of law that actually does keep other (third parties and "indie") candidates completely (if not just significantly, as if that were a difference) out of the debate picture. What the country needs, realistically, is a REAL Third Party that is REALLY United as to issues, Platform, RESOLVE, oh, and, by the way, carries a significant percentage of voter support ranging into a larger 1/3 to swing things. I am a former and disappointed Libertarian because these things have not been reached, only preached. Although I like Nader, Hillary gets my vote this time out.

Sent by Lee | 1:13 AM ET | 02-26-2008

All Nader does is inject a lot of useless anger.

Sent by UrbanHillbilly | 1:56 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Ralph Nader has been a great informant to the American people. Who cares about vote numbers? Nader has probably saved more lives than anyone alive today and thats just his policies on changing the automobile. Nader is brilliant and Mr Ridley knows this.

Sent by Mark Seibold | 2:21 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Why don't you folks read what he says? I know what it is, fear. Same thing got us in to 'nam...

Miscommunication in the US. Our country developed too quickly and spread out too much - relied on the telegraph and now TV to connect the country.

Compare that with Europe. Cultures in Europe evolved at a slow simmer. They built up, not out. News travels differently - people talk.

That can't happen in the US. Did you folks know that seven people control the media. Seven. Look it up. Do your research.

Raph Nader stands for more voices and choices. The Dems hate him. But do you really like the Dems? Nah me neither. They got bought out in 1984 just like the republicans.

Everyone - take some journalism classes. I did and learned a heck of alot about where our opinions come from - TV/Radio media - OWN BY SEVEN PEOPLE.

If your weren't afraid, you would vote Nader. But you are afraid he'll lose - so you choose so you choose to pick sub par and mainstream. And guess what, that is exactly what they are teaching you.

Sent by Joe | 2:23 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Mr. Nadar, thank you for running for presidency; this will give us a chance to force some issues to the public discourse. both parties have vested interests.
many will pressure you to stop speaking of issues real to all of us. I very much appreciated your points on Meet the Press. we need you , and we will support you all the way.

Sent by Cassy | 2:51 AM ET | 02-26-2008

With an open mind, I just watched Nader on CNN and read for hours about him. Does he realize how much of a joke his entry appears this time around? What is worse, it is discrediting and appeal his message may have, not to mention terribly scarring his legacy.

Sent by Stuart Eric Ewen | 3:10 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Read the book "No Debate" it might help you change your narrow views.

Sent by Patricia Johnson | 3:26 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

I came home and I leave my radio on and caught the end of your Ralph Nader show.
It's really sad that the two party system has made it impossible for good people like Mr. Nader can enter the process and are kept out of the debates, it's sad. We have the most corrupt government from the Executive Branch through the Judicial. Cheney and Rumsfeld have been around since the Nixon administration and have destroyed our country. I doubt we will be a factor in the world in two generations if the American people don't wake up and take this country back. There is not a dimes difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Except the Republicans are better at getting us in debt, enlarging the government and spinning that the Major Media is that dirty word Liberal.
When I listen to Russ, Michael Savage and The two blonde hate mongers it makes me sick. Thanks for the Diane Ream show and NPR. Coast to Coast Radio is great too.
The press in this country has lost their way. I pray that the U.S. citizens turn off their T. V. and Reality TV.
God bless the Bill of Rights and the founding father and Ralph Nader I will vote for you.
Some people think I'm throwing away my vote, but I see it as voting my conscience.
Michael Milo Hudson

Sent by Michael Milo Hudson | 4:07 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Nader brings to the table human compassion, empathy, courage and strength. neither Obama nor Clinton have those traits and it's as simple as looking into their draconian / joker eyes even through the pixels on tv. Nader has never given a half a**ed or runaround answer (yes both Clinton and Obama do all day). he has always been honest and real... look people.... we still live in a Nazi regime. dont be fooled by seeing prosperous colored thugs with their own reality show and think america is getting better with overcoming racism.
if Obama becomes prez all those nasty neo-nazis (NNN) will revolt and try to assasinate Obama. if Obama is assasinated all the nasty colored thugs and opposing people who have no clue will riot and revolt. it might be like JFK except this time it wont be just a "moment of silence as we remember". it will be "f-you's and gunshots screaming" galore ( i dont want that ).
so if we have riots then the military will have to detain many people. oh and there ARE empty concetration camps here in California. go ask your elder neighbor who is of Japanese descent. maybe even some blond hair blue eyed people might be in those camps to because its goin to be about maintaining control and Clinton/Bush are getting desperate and desperate poeple do stupid impulse things.... heck why not just vote for a dem or repub and keep killing people at the same rate. a vote for Nader is a vote for true human and life equality...
dont you people want peace???
because the way you all comment it's like you are all Mortal Kombat video game afficionados. do you really like fatalities???
I am a proud supporter of Nader and I will never change. even if I dont get that new Hummer truck or " hybrid Hummer" (yeah right) or "eco friendly 52 inch HDTV" I will be content. I know plenty of Obama supporters and Clinton and Mcainn for that matter, who are so depressed and miserable from being mind screwed into believing that material possesions are a way to happiness.

Nader tought me to be all that i can be without joining the army... now thats leadership we can all count on!
just believe and dont let the darkside seduce you and we can all be happy.
peace!!!

Sent by eugenio v | 6:23 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Mr. Ridley, you are so correct. Mr. Nader only shows up for the big one. He obviously doesn't want to go through the hard process needed to be a real candidate. I guess this is how he get heard. "I am running for President and maybe I can screw it up, again... Now aren't you sorry you don't do what I want?" Ralph, thanks for all you have done in the past but give this up. You are tarnishing your white knight armor even more. Your campaign is Unsafe At Any Time.

Sent by townie7890 | 7:22 AM ET | 02-26-2008

He's done more for this country than most people in office today. I hate Bush but the fact that Gore couldn't beat him on his own merits and that the press and election system is biased, flawed and bought, blaming him for our situation is believing the spin doctors and not the facts.

Sent by Dario | 7:54 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Al Gore lost in 2000 because he was a mediocre candidate, not because of Ralph Nader. What Nader sees is an ineffectual Congress, a lame duck president, a growing military industrial complex, the privatization of our government and a race between three relatively centrist candidates. He wants his voice - and the voices of his supporters - heard on the biggest stage in the world. We should welcome his political ideas and populist ideals into this campaign and not deride him simply out of fear of losing.

Sent by Ole Tangen Jr | 7:54 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Come on, Nader did not hand the 2000 election to Bush, remember Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore by disenfranchising voters in Florida. How can he simultaneously not get very many votes and still swing even a close election to the Republican Party? That said, I feel its still a joke that he is throwing his proverbial hat in the ring this late in the game.

Sent by Dharma | 8:51 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Ralph Nader reminds me of so many people in history who have shown talent, intelligence and drive in one or several endeavors, then they meet their Waterloo in trying to achieve something in politics. Mr. Nader did so much for consumer advocacy, illuminating government errors in environmental policy and championing the rights for the disenfranchised groups; however, these great achievements do not necessarily translate into political leadership.

Pat Paulson made his great comedy routine in running for president and that was very funny, but by that he showed the folly of running for high office through this act. I think Ralph Nader is very comical running for president, but the tragedy is he thinks he will make a difference or even win. Do I think he will be a spoiler like in 2000? No, but he thinks he will be a spoiler in 2008. And there is the comic tragedy: he could so much in other areas, but chooses not to and waste his time engaged in the thing he has no talent for: running for political office.

Sent by Dave Martin | 9:12 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Anyone who blames Nader for 2000's result should realize that president was selected in 2000 by the Supreme Court under Scalia.

The second largest loophole in the equation is Gore's unwillingness to realize how dirty, unconstitutional and illegal the fight against him/us was.

He wanted to believe that justice didn't need a champion by her side for this one.

What I believe we needed was Gore to fight back enough to defend Justice and our constitution -- or the Democratic congress in power now to execute their obligations under the constitution and bring about impeachment hearings.

This isn't a matter of "we can or can't win" impeachment -- the impeachment needs to be brought because the crimes committed demand it.

Sent by FreedomOfInformation | 9:24 AM ET | 02-26-2008

A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for myself. Why not just write my own name on the ballot? hmmmmm

Sent by Kitty Shanahan | 9:29 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Sam Smith said it better than I can,

"At the same time, I believe that anyone who feels there is something wrong with their neighborhood, city, state or country not only has the right to run for public office but honors that office by doing so. To criticize someone for exercising this right is repulsively anti-democratic and, when the target is Nader or the Greens, reflects the political trust fund baby mentality of the Democratic Party, living off the hard efforts of its past and doing little or nothing for the present and future.

The party of denial needs to look at its own defects and not seek salvation in blaming others for exercising their constitutional rights."

Sent by Margarita Maldonado | 9:45 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Everyone is missing Nader's point regarding why he is running again. He is running to provide us with another option. If I can buy 7 different types of Oreos at the store why do I have to only choose from 2 candidates, which are awfully similar?

Sent by Paul | 9:58 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Who else will bring a truly progressive message to the table? Why should anyone listen to Democrats that allowed themselves to be duped into this idiotic war. Why vote for someone who supports the abdication of basic freedoms in the so-called patriot act. Kucinich was the only candidate that could be trusted to take in the paper from the front lawn and no one in this land of fools seemed to want to listen. At least Nader will be able to to expose the message of dissent. Listen my friends, the current Democrats are just Republicans with a Jack*** as their mascot.

Sent by Rob Ransom | 10:05 AM ET | 02-26-2008

The majority of these comments (and the article they're in response to) neglect to discuss any of Nader's arguments. This political system is a joke in this country, and no way should it be seen as, be mediated as, or remain a two party system. Red/Blue. Dem/Rep. It's farcical! Democracy is open to competing voices and platforms. But instead media (help to) prescribe the bipartisan framework as the only one. Let's not forget that the Republican party began as a third party .....
Past Democratic candidates are responsible for the amount of people who voted for Nader. Why don't they realize that there is a market out there for his ideas and try and to go left enought to speak to those voters themselves? It's quite simple - there is a far left in this country, and if Dem candidates don't speak to those voters and encorporate that far end of the spectrum appealingly in thier own platforms, then voters will support someone who does. As they should.

Sent by George | 10:08 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Of all of the comments posted, only Natalie gets it, and not because she is pro-Nader. Ridley is taking the easy commentary track of ridiculing Nader based on the stereotypical/status quo view of the man and his desire (although desire is somewhat of a mis-speak in that he is NOT power hungry) to put his hat in the ring. As a commentator Ridley can sit back and smile while receiving the predictable accolades. This is precisely the kind of rant/comment that makes one popular during a round of drinks with friends after work. The majority, including most of the press that even give Nader the time of day, only focus on his "Spoiler" status. The majority simply don't get it. He is not running to win. He is running to get the word out. To speak for those that are not heard. To bring some 'cojones' to the table. All you have to do is listen to the man (Nader) to know that he is the only one running with pure conviction and substance. You don't have to agree with him or vote for him but why trivialize him, or any U.S. citizen with a conscience, for caring about his country, its citizens and the world around them? Obama and Clinton's response is shameful, knowingly fearful, and weak. That is one of the reasons why Nader is running.

Sent by William P. Bennett | 10:11 AM ET | 02-26-2008

The many questions about Mr. Nader's hubris, ego, etc. Sure, let's forget the numerous federal legislations, acts and agencies he made happen, congressional testimonies, advisory reports, his influence in the Carter administration's environmental and energy policies, numerous citizen and watchdog groups, a national political party (that is imploding because of the cowardice of the same people who come to boards like this and tell Nader to keep quiet. Ever since Nader's announcement, conventional wisdom is feeling a bit too Orwellian for my tastes.

Sent by Kyle Romberg | 10:14 AM ET | 02-26-2008

When Obama and Clinton start talking about a single-payer, universal coverage health insurance plan and stop accepting money from industry lobbyists who actually control policy in this country, I'll consider voting for them instead of Nader.

Sent by boyd addlesperger | 10:22 AM ET | 02-26-2008

As much as I think a Nader win might just be the best thing to could happen to the American public, There is no chance of it happening. We'll be stuck with the same old thing once again. Doesn't matter if it's McCain, Obama or Hillary.

Sent by Robert | 10:32 AM ET | 02-26-2008

I think this article was not well written and not well researched. Sadly, it is a reflection of the unfortunate reality of our society today, in which the majority are so blindsided by the popular media that they are not even willing to welcome a candidate into the race, asking him to "drop out" or "go home". I feel that we, as Americans, should have all the choices of leaders, that is what we fought for, freedom of choice. Nader may not have a chance but he throws a ripple into the pond of the robotic mutterings of the Obama/Hilary race, as well as gives smaller parties a voice.
I know this may be bias, but take a look at this video (PBS special), if you have a chance, I am not backing any candidate at this time, but I feel it may just open your eyes:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unreasonableman/nader.html

Sent by Reba Heiden | 10:35 AM ET | 02-26-2008

When was that a man can't run for President? When was it okay for you and so many, to write off a man's thoughts so glibly? How would you like it?

Nader has things to say to America. Corporate politics for one is the curse that has swept our nation.

And yet, do you talk about it? I don't mean just once in a while (if you ever have). No, of course not. You're too busy being cute.

When was the last time you did a meaningful story about any of the questions Nader has raised?

When they ask, "where's the meat?" guys like you think they're talking about human flesh, not ideas.

It must be grand, hanging out with your buddies, kicking ole Ralph around. Do you have ears? Do you see a true story when its told? Or do you repeat that same line all the others are saying?

Most reporters are lazy. "I've got too much to do to do it well. To really care what I am doing with the golden opportunity I have been given."

But oh, what glee you have turning on "easy targets" like Ralph Nader.

Have you even bothered to read his arguments? When is a man's voice allowed to be free?

Sent by Bob Sadler | 10:39 AM ET | 02-26-2008

My bad...I thought we lived in a democracy. I am an independent and informed voter. In past elections, after careful thought and consideration, I have cast my vote for candidates of varying parties and affiliations. I take the right to vote seriously. To all those misinformed souls who think that I would somehow cast my singular vote for the highest office in the land for the likes of Barak Obama, Hilary Clinton or John McCain if Ralph Nader were not in the race...think again. It's no secret that the United States has a corrupt and broken political system; I choose not to endorse candidates who are muddled in this mess. I value everyone's right to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. Please afford me that same respect. All good men and women of history who seek and speak the TRUTH have been maligned and denigrated. Ralph Nader is no exception. Yes, Mr. Nader is not perfect but he has done more for the common good, which includes his detractors, than all of the other candidates combined. And for the record Mr. Ridley et al, to be eligible for election to the presidency, a candidate must: 1) be a natural-born citizen of the United States, 2) be at least thirty-five years old and 3) have been a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. Ralph Nader meets all of these qualifications.

Sent by Brian P | 10:42 AM ET | 02-26-2008

How come people are blaming Nader for Bush being in office? What about the people that voted for Bush? Why don't you blame Republicans getting Bush past the primaries in the first place? Why can't you blame Gore for not being able to pull a wider margin of voters? Why can't you blame the electoral college? What about the people that don't believe anything the politicians say and stayed home that year? Why is it Nader's fault Bush was elected? Why can't it be Bush's fault?

Sent by Sean | 10:42 AM ET | 02-26-2008

I am a republican that voted for RN the past two elections. Will do so again because RN promotes real change and not just talk.

Sent by TF | 10:48 AM ET | 02-26-2008

The last 2 elections I voted for Nader because I was sick of promises during the campaigns that never really materialize. In fact, elected officials usually do not even attempt to follow through on their campaign promises. And there are some issues where the candidates give up before they even start: national health care means that the government pays for health care through taxes. Obama and Clinton call their plans national health care, but all they are doing is giving discounts on health care. Thank you very much when national health care is now a government law demanding everyone to buy insurance. Everyone, even Obama, is same old stuff. I want a real change, and until I see it somewhere else, I will keep voting for an independant, someone like Nader. A man who care more about the USA than anyone in either major party.

Sent by Ron Sowa, Jackson Mississippi | 10:52 AM ET | 02-26-2008

This type of rhetoric will help continue this two-party system. I think it is refreshing to have candidates (Ralph Nader and Ron Paul) who are not tied to corporations because they do not take campaign contributions. They fund their campaign with their own money. Politicians with no special interests are the people that can be trusted because their first priority will the be the American public. The candidates running now will not change anything and it is naive to think otherwise. I think the American people deserve to have several options and think it is abhorrable to have the 'electoral college' and 'delegates'. We need to base our elections on popular votes, only then will it be a true democracy.

Sent by Kristine | 11:06 AM ET | 02-26-2008

H. Clinton should be happy Ralph has come to her aid by asking the hard questions of Obama why he does not come down on the corporations that take advantage of black and other poor in America. I forgot, H. Clinton also has not said anything or done anything about pay-day loans as well.

Sent by mike mills | 11:16 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Dear Ralph Nader,

You are a joke, but a very dangerous joke; and a presidential election is no laughing matter.

Sent by A. Cook | 11:21 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Nader recently spoke in Richmond, and when asked about how he felt taking votes away from Democrats he basically said that we live in a free country, and if he can run and wants to run, he will. People who voted for him were making a statement about the lack of options in our outdated two party system, and not everyone is a sheep led by either the Democratic party or the Republican party. Nader can run if he wants to, and people can vote for him if they want to, period. He is an incredible and inspiring American whether you like him or not.

Sent by Jordan | 11:24 AM ET | 02-26-2008

I agree with above poster: run for Senate to effect change. He won't do it however, because if he can't be in charge, he won't run.

The only way to effect change is from within.

And, no one is disputing his right to run. But, it accomplishes nothing and only takes votes from the one party that at least has half a clue.

Sent by Lisa Pons | 11:50 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Dear Natalie Smith,

...and anyone else who is proud to tell us that Nader will get his or her vote:

How interesting. Please also tell us what other interesting personal activities you are planning that also have absolutely nothing to do with decideing who, for the next 4 to 8 years, will have the power to send our children to war, appoint industry protectors to regulatory agencies, position our government squarely against addressing climate change, undermine every kind of individual right and privacy, destroy our reputation in the world, undermine the separation of church and state, ignore the prerogative of the Congress to write laws, promote the continued destruction of the middle class, and spend us into an oblivion of debt, mostly owned by the Communist Chinese (does anyone remember Tiananmen Square?).

This, and countless other calamities, like committing countless high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and continuning to load our Supreme Court with lunatics who will allow these crimes, this is what our votes have the power to stop.

But it is very interesting to hear about your plans to vote for Nader this year. What other interesting items have you tacked onto your calendar? I hear there will be a Blue Light Special on Wednesday, and maybe a picnic would be fun.

Sent by bco | 11:54 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Mr Nader, what could you possibly hope to accomplish?

For anyone who votes for Nader, let's be very clear on this: YOU ARE DOING THIS NATION HARM. You can subscribe to his platform. You can be disgusted with the political process (as we all are!). But you MUST understand that by voting Nader, you are only dilluting the liberal/progressive sentiment that would otherwise ensure a liberal victory. You can hide behind your ideals, but the reality is that this country's political process will continue to roll forward, with or without your vote. A vote for Nader might as well be a vote for McCain.

Sent by dave | 11:59 AM ET | 02-26-2008

Having the CHOICE to vote for the candidate that best represents our personal views and values is one of the beauties of being US citizens. I have been anxiously awaiting the announcement that Ralph Nader will run again and am thrilled to have the opportunity to vote for him again. I have PROUDLY voted for Nader in every presidential election I have been old enough to vote in (this year will be my 4th) and I will continue to do so. We have a right to vote for whichever candidate speaks to us and not just which one of two we could "deal with" having in office. I say NO to the two party system that forces me to choose the lesser of two evils and I say THANK YOU to Ralph Nader for his diligence, determination and for giving me and others like me a choice.

Sent by Portia Manhan | 12:00 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I'm glad Nader put his hat in the ring if only to raise the level of the questions to be asked of Obama and Clinton. If these candidates really want to make substantial changes then take on corporations head on, cut out the exceptional tax breaks to this group, and begin taxing corporations and the wealthiest properly. Nader has asked difficult questions for us, the American people to contemplate. This country is in the mess it's in because between 35 and 40 percent of Americans vote - where are the other 60 to 65 percent of the voters? I agree with Donna that direct voting by the people is the way to overhaul the political mess called "voting" in this country. Our individual voices are lost in the current system.

Sent by Molly | 12:09 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I cannot believe John Ridley is so short sighted about the democratic process. At least Nader is advancing the options that America has in the face of this big money, two party system. Maybe John would prefer if we only had one party and no choice at all. Nader seems to be the voter's advocate as of late. At least there are people in this country who care more about principles than whether or not they are going to win the prize and the power.

Sent by Brandon Cuthbertson | 12:12 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Although I agree with the point of the piece. Ralph Nader should stay home, who is this writer??? Call my private security people to see the "fun" that only contractors with badges can deliver? Have I missed something? It doesn't sound funny to me....Can you enlighten me please?

Sent by JOHN LONGO | 12:21 PM ET | 02-26-2008

John Ridley seems pleased that corporations have taken over every department and agency in the federal government. I think i remember him blogging his approval when Mussolini took over Italy.

Sent by evan | 12:21 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I think the real problem lies not in Nader running for president, but in the system. Yes, I agree that in 2000 he affected the winning president, much to my dismay and horrid disappointment. The presidential election process is a disgrace to our country. It's too politicized, it's basically high school on a national level. We as a country need to grow up and put what really matters on the forefront. We might as well be watching the campaigns on Entertainment tonight instead of CNN.

Sent by Sarah | 12:23 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I was so refreshed when Nader threw his hat into the ring. I actually will have someone to vote for that hasn't sold out to special interests. I find it interesting right now that our politicians continue to deride Cuba for not allowing another party to vie for the leadership while there is no way for a third party to enter a national debate in our fair country. The only way we will ever have true democracy is if a third party can debate without having a lot of special interest.

Sent by Scottie | 12:24 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Our electoral system is need of massive reform -- from public financing to Instant Runoff Election, to secure voting machines. Our current 2 party system is undemocratic and puts severe limitations on having a real political dialog with the voters. I also favor direct popular elections for our presidential candidates. We deserve a better more democratic election process and Citizens should demand it!

Sent by Silver Persinger | 12:25 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Nader should be in the race as a reminder to voters that the electoral system is rigged in favor of corporate interests and class elites. Though his efforts are quixotic, the symbolism of his run does matter. Nader will not stop any Democrat from winning. The Florida vote recount fraud, and a biased Supreme Court, defeated Gore. Those who belittle Nader's efforts have lost sight of the fact that genuine democracy relies on authentic challenges to the status quo, not just "meddling around the edges" that is promised by the annointed candidates. I may not vote for Nader, but I am thrilled that he is running.

Sent by Mike Kenney, Easton, Pa. | 12:41 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Ralph Nader has become a joke. In his day, he did quite a bit in the public arena, but lately (John Ridley quite rightly says) he only shows up to run for President. Terribly self-indulgent. I will never forgive him for the 2000 election. Thank you, Mr. Nader, for launching the Bush administration.

Sent by Leigh | 12:55 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I read this article and the comments above and it appears as though everyone is so conditioned to the idea of voting for one of the two parties that even the idea of a third party candidate is scary. Is this really a democracy? Look around the world and almost every thriving democracy has multiple parties battling it out in each election, ensuring that various groups of people get a voice. The fact that Mr. Nader gets some votes - a number significant enough that he is blamed for the Democrats' losses - shows that there is are people out there who don't feel represented by the two major parties. Anyone who respects the democratic process would understand and respect his candidacy instead of blaming him for running.

Sent by Vaishali Honawar | 1:03 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Many of you Americans have mouth full of "democracy" and big words like "freedom" but when a guy like Nader wants to run you go nuts. And when he gets some votes some of you actually even go so far as to blame him that he lost an election for someone else. In case you forgot democracy is not limited to choosing between the two. But I guess you forgot it in the process of choosing between going to Walmart and Target or between supersized and just plain ol' big. Good luck!

Sent by Ondrej | 1:07 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Mr. Nader, I saw you leaving Moscow twenty years ago and remarked to my wife how much I admired your work. Now I think its time for you to give it up. Your futile campaign bid is sad, pathetic and inconsistent with the positive work you have done. Now you appear to be a foolish, old egomaniac!

Sent by James Ranes | 1:22 PM ET | 02-26-2008

As long as our government is a two party system independant canditates, in my opinion, cannot win.

Sent by Peter Atkeison | 1:25 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I agree, this guy thinks that the only way to involve the issues of his green party is to run for president. You don't hear a peep from this guy except for every four years. Where's the Nader of the 70's who petitioned for the common guy in the courts and senate? Also, as for the pure popular vote (comment numero uno), I don't want a Jesse Ventura or Howard Stern for president. If you truly leave the vote to the populous, all you'll get is a popular guy; and I remember from high school and beyond that the popular guy tends to be the dumbest guy.

Sent by Roy Mathew | 1:39 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Does anybody know how this works?? Ralph, as anyone knows has no chance at winning the vote. He hopes to get something like 5% of the vote which would entitle him to free postage for the next 4 years. This is something only Ross Poret has done, and would have continued to if he would have formed a real party. The goal is to basiclly dethrown the 2 party system, which almost every country in the western world enjoys exept America. He came close during gore/bush but close doesn't count for much....

Sent by shaun | 1:40 PM ET | 02-26-2008

You don't get it, you and all the other like you, who take cheap shots and revel in ridicule instead of recognizing the crucial need to compel politicians to address the issues long championed by Ralph Nader. How dare you dismiss the entire career of a tireless, uncompromising advocate for making consumer products safer, for holding government and corporations accountable, and for making our democracy work as it should, with your condescending statement "Yeah, in his lifetime Nader has done good work." And you are either naive or willfully disregarding recent history to suggest Nader has "done little to get involved in the political process except to hit the scene once every four years and try to take the top prize." What about all those pesky congressional hearings in the '60s and '70s that he pushed for and at which he testified, all those influential Public Citizen reports, and grass-roots campaigns he helped lead against greedy insurance companies, unsafe nuclear power plants, etc.?
Of course he'll never be president, but as long as he continues raising his voice against corporate power and corrupt politics, there's hope for change. What Ralph Nader stands for is much more worth considering than what bloggers write about him.

Sent by Tim Kelly | 1:41 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Thank you so much for this article. This pretty much completely sums up my feelings toward Nader and Ron Paul. This election year, we have a very real chance to vote in a younger, more intellectual, charismatic, revolutionary president. I-don't-care-about-anything-political-except-being-president Nader has a chance at throwing all that in the proverbial recycling bin again. It's frustrating, all right.

Sent by Damien Lupo | 1:43 PM ET | 02-26-2008

A person that votes for Nader would not have voted at all if Nader was not in the race. It is unfair to assume that if Nader was not there that the person would vote Democrat.

Sent by Paul | 1:49 PM ET | 02-26-2008

I think that Nader is a great man with a lot of views that line up with mine, but where does he go when there's not a presidential race? Is he doing anything to help anyone at any other time? Under our current electoral system, there's no way for a thinker to win. You have to be a doer. I agree that we need to re-do the entire system and then maybe Nader will stand a chance at winning instead of just hurting the democrats in close races.

Sent by Sam | 1:57 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Unfortunately Ralph hasn't done much for the country since his battle with GM. Even then he accomplished more for himself than for anyone else. He has done little about globalization, less than Al Gore in regard to the environment.
I think his agenda is formed by his feeling of being slighted by President Clinton and the Democratic Party in the 1990's.
I wonder where his campaign money is coming from? It would be interesting to know.
Ralph was once described as "An Unreasonable Man"; I think that explains him. I have not thought much of Ralph in many a year; he really is an amazing egotist - all talk and no action.

Sent by Stephen | 1:58 PM ET | 02-26-2008

Nader is only exercising his political right in seeking to be elected. Saying Nader stopped a Gore win is pure-juice false no matter how often it's said. To his credit, Nader was one of the few people in the 60s engaged for "change" who did not say "uncle" when Reagan offered free obedience training to the postwar born who could talk. Bad, bad. When you go to the voting place (your private protection squad muscle twitching at a reasonable distance behind dark-glasses), and you curtain yourself off alone with your conscience, then is YOUR opportunity to bring down your approved voting pencil and violently NOT VOTE NADER. And, I really do care. By the way, has the FDA checked cheddar cheese popcorn for aggression stimulation properties lately. For cholesterol, it's rated a known killer, I know that. Brother, please, lets be real.

Sent by Michael Cassady | 2:05 PM ET | 02-26-2008

It's not about winning, It's about us insane left-wingers (you know, the ones who are ahead of the curve on everything) having a voice in this thing now that Kucinich is gone.

Sent by Jamie | 2:08 PM ET | 02-26-2008

All the democrats complaining about Nader's campaign are missing the point.

The democratic part