Yes that is sad that us taxpayers are going to have to flip the bill for Mr. Nadar's SS protection. But it is good that he is going to be taking away votes or delegates from the democrats come election time next Nov.

He is accredited from helping to defeat Al Gore last election. Lets hope he can do the same in '08!!

Er, last election was John Kerry. Have another drink.

It stinks having to pay to protect someone for what is basically an ego trip.

Nader will only be a factor if Senator Clinton stea...er is nominated. Obama already speaks to the young change minded voter, and even a few older voters who see a big chance to stir things up a bit. Nader has a ton of baggage, and is older than McCain. Not what the youth vote is looking for. This all about Ralph.
Jack forgive me for being blunt, but screw him.

Roy, I share your disgust. Nader doesn't have a chance at winning anything with this... except yet another lifetime achievement award from the International Academy of A-holes.

Earth to Ralph,

JUST GO AWAY!!! PLEASE??? PRETTY PLEASE??? PRETTY PLEASE WITH A CHERRY ON TOP???

When Coffeetrader spoke, I believe he meant the last time Nader ran ... in any case he does have a chance of pulling some greenies away from the dems - I can only hope. Obama will be a horrible choice as would Clinton.

There's only one solution: we have to elect Nader. Twice. Otherwise, what's to prevent him from continuing to do this? Incidentally, I recommend the movie "An Unreasonable Man" for some insight into Nader's thinking. He is, of course, absolutely right that political corruption dominates both parties in the US and that neither one can effectively represent actual people. But his response to these circumstances has been amply demonstrated to be (to put it mildly) counterproductive.

Don't get me started on Ralph Nader. What a sham for a man who has done so much for so many to end up his career as such a total JERK. Giving the election to Bush and now runing again when he know he cannot win.
I think he has lost his (what used to be, great) mind.

Let it go. Gore lost his own state, his own election, even with more popular votes.

That being said, I don't know what Ralph hopes to gain by being a perennial candidate. At some point you lose some credibility - even if you have good ideas.

Anyway, the last I heard it was a free country. I don't think it would be all bad to have alternatives to what amounts the liberal and conservative wings of the "money" party.

Hey, who knows... if it ends up being a choice between Clinton and McCain, he might have a chance.

I love to see the Democrats get their undies in a twist whenever Ralph's name is mentioned. As Ralphie said during his announcement on Meet the Press, if the Dems cannot "landslide" the Republicans THIS time, what the hell good is it to keep the party going?

This would be a good time to try to think of a SINGLE THING the Dems have done to distinguish themselves from Republicans or any SINGLE THING they have done to stop the war criminal and international gangster George W. Bush.

VOTE NADER!!!

One more thing:

IMO, if Obama or Hitlery Clinton are so goddam scared of Ralph stealing votes, maybe they should grow a backbone to make him a non-factor.

Obama is an unknown commodity. He is getting a lot of momentum from the youth/college vote, which is traditionally Ralph's turf. If he is elected, it will no doubt be better than our long Bush nightmare. But people will quickly realize that Obama has no plans to change the fact that corporations are in near-total control of our nation.

Clinton is incapable of change. Everyone knows she is on her way out.

Bottom line: Ralph will be kept off the ballot in all but a handful of states, so all these screaming Dems can chillax.

"This would be a good time to try to think of a SINGLE THING the Dems have done to distinguish themselves from Republicans"

"Hitlery Clinton"

"the fact that corporations are in near-total control of our nation"

What a nutjob. This guy is a lawyer? Gag.

What a nutjob.

Thanks for disputing a single thing I wrote.

None has a point. The Dems haven't done a hell of a lot except wear a different party label, esp. since 2006 when they regained some control over Congress.

Nader won't affect any of this one way or the other. Is that a cautionary tale of another sort?

I imagine Nader will be assigned the bottom of the secret Service Class, You know the ones that turned in assignments late, think a convertabile in a presdential parade is a good thing, etc.

People who vote for Ralph are just as ego driven as he is. They want attention for being different, rather than doing anything of substance during primary season when actual change can occur.

Regardless of what you think of his policies, Nader has the charisma of a pet rock and is thus unelectable. If change was paramount in your decision, why not throw your support behind Kucinich during primary season?? He's not much different ideologically, he has charisma, he's smart, and he participated in the primary system. He had his shot, and he was shot down (fairly or unfairly)... end of story, move on.

So Nader decides to throw his hat in at this point, because the field has narrowed and he can make a splash. And Meet the Press was happy to give the irrelevant bastard air time, during the thick of the Ohio/Texas primary, when a legitimate candidate like Kucinich couldn't get invited to debates this year. Strange isn't it? That would be because GE/NBC and the like want a spoiler for the Dems, even if the country has spoken twice not to elect Nader. They want so badly to make it so, despite underwhelming demand...

Nader can count on money from conservatives to keep his ego trip going... lucky us.

I actually re-registered as a Democrat for the sole purpose of participating in Oregon's Democratic primaries. But since ours is so late in the season, it hardly matters what Oregonians think about their primary candidates.

For the record, in 2004, I came close to voting for George Bush as a symbolic gesture towards the Democrats who raked Nader over the coals for wanting to improve our American democracy.

In the end, I voted for John Kerry, which didn't exactly do a lot of good.

"...I came close to voting for George Bush as a symbolic gesture towards the Democrats who raked Nader over the coals"

Wow. That would have really showed them. You do realize that a party's candidate doesn't necessarily represent the vested, old-line interests that run it, right? They're the ones stiffling democracy...

"In the end, I voted for John Kerry, which didn't exactly do a lot of good."

Hey, great attitude! Do you choose a winning football team as your favorite because losing is too hard on your pride or ego?

This country doesn't take the right to vote seriously, I'm afraid...

Nader appears as the only first-party candidate.

Then there are two more parties beneath him -- we could debate which is in second-party place and which is in third-party place.

But why would anyone want to vote for less than the best of ethic America?

Wow. That would have really showed them.

Judging from the vein-popping rages from Democrats I have shared that story with, it would have been pretty effective.

Do you choose a winning football team as your favorite because losing is too hard on your pride or ego?

Not exactly. As evidence, please revisit my votes for Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000. He never had a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.

My last comment on this topic: I might be able to vote with pride for Barrack Obama. (Depends on what happens with him between now and election day.) If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for Nader or, perhaps, no one.

Nut job, out!

Ralph might be a nutjob - but I'm glad he's in the race. He serves as a constant reminder that the Democrats are really not much different than the Republicans, and that to the average Joe & Jane nothing will be different whether Billary, Barack or McCain reside in the White House. Corporations run everything in this country and the only thing that matters is corporate profits. Our local government is notably no exception to that rule.