I think the Nader-gave-us-Bush narrative has been flawed and very counter-productive. When an election comes down to a few hundred votes, people could blame the outcome on any single factor. Instead of being furious at immoral and anti-democratic factors like the electoral college or the voter disenfranchisement in Jacksonville, progressives have been fuming over Nader for 7 years! Shouldn’t we be discussing the other two problems (like Nader has been)?

The narrative also treats voter preferences as though they are static. It turns to exit polls as evidence Nader’s votes were “subtracted” from Gore, instead of viewing voters and candidates as part of a dynamic, agentic democratic process. Personally, I think Nader making the public and especially the “New Democrats” confront campaign finance helped paved the way for Obama.

I agree our winner-take-all elections force voters to make rotten trade-offs, but that's a problem with the system, not progressive candidates talking about important issues.

As, elsewhere, I mentioned, the Oval Office is no country for old men!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/kid5rivers/gGgNbc

Nader is done, Dr. Melissa.  No need to worry about him.  He won't be able to get on the ballot in most states, and he simply doesn't have the organization.  Like most people, he doesn't understand the paradigm shift that has occurred in the electorate.  Independents will go for Obama, not Elmer Fudd.

Ralph Nader takes these stands: Adopt single payer national health insurance-Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget-No to nuclear power, solar energy first-Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare-Open up the Presidential debates-Adopt a carbon pollution tax-Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East-Impeach Bush/Cheney-Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law-Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax-Put an end to ballot access obstructionism-Work to end corporate personhood ... which of these do you have a problem with? I only ask because Obama has a problem with ALL OF THEM. And that's a problem. Nader is the real thing. Don't be afraid. Be brave. Come on in, the water is fine. See An Unreasonable Man and know exactly who Nader is before you talk about him. The man has done more for this country than all of the other candidates combined.

Clearly Melissa, had you bothered to read Ralph Naders campaign platform, you would realize that Nader is more for CHANGE than Obama the crook could ever hope to be.  Here is how this will play out.  Hillary will likely fall to the way-side as Americans blindly follow your snake oil salesmen. Obama will then be pitted against McCain.  Obama has a mountain of indiscretions that make the Clintons look like saints, that have not yet hit the press.  The war machine (contractors) and more importantly, the health care industry, support the media heavily and are practicing their control on this information.  Once Obama is the Democratic choice, the unpaid traffic tickets he decided only to pay when he wanted to run, the million dollar house from the endited slum lord, the quarter of a million dollar raise for his wife from her position at the hospital, the company she shut down placing hundreds of latinos on unemployment while she sat on the board, and the hospital gouging minorities and those without insurance three times as much for service as those with, just to name a few of their crooked scemes, will come foward.  This will be matched up with Obama's lack of patriotism for this country, and the fact that he voted for all of Bush's war appropriations, and all McCain will have to do is be apologetic on the war and move to bring it to a quick conclusion without much commitment on a date.  The war machine and the health industry then wins, business as usual.  So I think you know what you can do with your soup spoon dear. Read about real change here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm

Here is your hero Obama as he really is dearest: http://obamatruth.org/

Yes, Nader stole the election. Not the US Supreme Court, who chose our president for us. Not Jeb Bush's Florida cronies who likely rigged e-ballot boxes (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm) or (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0621-11.htm). And it certainly wasn't Al Gore himself who ignored the support of the Congressional Black Caucus and Senator Barbara Boxer by not challenging the Florida result. It was Ralph Nader, who pulled less than 3% of the national vote.

PingBack from http://communitycheckup.com/2008/02/25/dont-hate-on-nader/

Sbrak--are you aware that the links you posted completely and utterly and irreparably contradict your contention that nader was responsible for the events of 2000? i heartily recommend everyone please follow the links Sbrak has included. they are, indeed, extremely enlightening. as for mpatton and Jerodpdx -- well said.

jerodpbx you're mistaken about Obama. Ralph Nader himself called Obama "a person of substance" and "the first liberal evangelist in a long time". This is far from "crook".

Here here Melissa.

I worked hard to elect John Anderson, the third party candidate in 1980.  It was only later that I realized that our biggest accomplishment was to help elect Ronald Reagan.  I will never make that mistake again.

It is useless to argue with the Nader supporters.  These are people who actually believed that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush (I cannot even begin to count how many times I heard that line in 2000), and who are so disenchanted with the inherent corruption of the political system that they have chosen to simply protest rather than participate.  They are also apparently unable to do the math such that they believe that in an election that was literally evenly divided, 3% of the vote that largely consisted of progressive votes did not make a difference.

There are only two possibilities with regard to Ralph Nader.  Either he is simply an arrogant self important idiot, or he has a master plan that involves attempting to elect the Republicans so many times that they do such massive damage so as to recreate the crisis of 1860 (which was the last time that a third party, the Republicans, was able to emerge as a major party, but of course then they became part of the system and thus part of the problem).  If the Green Party had somehow won and catapulted into major party status in 2000, it would very soon have had to deal with the same political system and the same political realities as any other political party.  Every party has to wrestle with the issues of the corrupting influence of money and power and what they are really wrestling with is human nature.

I had an old friend years ago comment, "In Russia you have one person to vote for, here we have two". Our two party system works very hard to keep it that way, why change it ! If Ralph wants to be president he needs to work in the system by taking corporate money and being part of the two party machine! How dare anyone redefine our democracy. No it isn't the best but it is what has made us so great and who else looks out for us better then corporate America! I am sure the system will keep Ralph off most state ballots and he surely doesn't have the funds to change that! Don't worry Melissa, you still need lots of corporate money to be president, that won't change and the democrats will be more on guard to keep ballot access unavailable to anyone opposing this! This is what democracy is all about!

Nader won't make a difference.  I think that the majority of Americans and moderates, not right or left wing kooks and we can see past these absurdly stupid websites like obamatruth.org.

That's why young people flock to Obama.  They can see past this.  They <i> know</i> that some republican group probably put the site up and can call it what ever they want...(like obamatruth.org) but the name doesn't make it so.  

These same plays don't work anymore, Jerodpdx.  It's ok if you don't like Barack, it's not a sin.  But if there is ANYTHING  controversial and has merit, Senator Clinton would have already used it.  She's in her final death throes of a failing campaign.

If you wanted real progressive change, you should have supported Dennis Kuchnich ( even if he did look like an elf.)  

Did any one learn anything from the last presidential election?  The one before it?  If there was only one difference between Gore and Bush or Kerry and Bush (there were many, but for argument's sake) it was whom each candidate would nominate to the Supreme Court.  

When I hear "Nader" I think "Alito and Roberts."  We need to save the bench from radicals that will be around far longer than any administration.  People are deluded in placing faith in McCain not to appoint candidates as conservative as Bush II succeeded in placing n the bench.  True progressives realize that there's a huge risk in letting any republican come to power, especially given the vulnerable state of our highest court.  I mean, Bush I - a moderate by today's standards - put Thomas on!  On the other hand, Clinton - also a moderate by today's standards - put Ginsberg on.  Needless to say (or so I thought until Nader showed up), what a freaking contrast.  

As far as I'm concerned, the Nader people, progressive as they think they are, must take responsibility for the steady loss of abortion rights, deregulation, and the slate of disingenuous conveniently "federalist" rulings against the hated New Deal to come.  There is so much at stake - don't tell me there wouldn't be a substantial difference between an Obama appointment and a McCain appointment.  Seriously, this matters more than anything else.  

Well, Sen Obama is certainly not a crook, and Sen Clinton certainly is not "evil," as some seem to  think.

Having said that, I will tell you that I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because I thought he was the best candidate. Did I believe he would have made a great President? Hardly. Even a good President? That, too, unlikely. A better President than George Bush or Al Gore? Yes, absolutely. I still believe that.

As for the stuff about 3% of the vote and about Florida, I say Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election. Al Gore cost Al Gore the election. If Gore carries HIS OWN STATE in 2000, he wins, no matter what happens in Florida. And, only half kidding, if all the folks who threw away their votes on Gore had voted for Nader instead, George Bush would never have been President.

It's time Democrats in general and Gore supporters in particular stop blaming others, or even themselves, and just do the things they need to do to win. Thank goodness this year you won't be able to nominate a candidate as lame as Al Gore or John Kerry. Neither Sen Obama nor Sen Clinton strike me as experienced enough to do a good job in the White House, but the intractable and temperamental Sen McCain just won't do.

As for Mr Nader. Even political freak Ross Perot had some influence in getting a balanced budget under Bill Clinton. Will the Democrats, if they win, at least LISTEN to Nader's points about the dictatorship of the corporation we live under?

Just last night we had a bright friend over for dinner. He's one of Obama's phone bank captains and campaigned on foot in NH. I asked him what he thought of Nader entering the race and he told me HE had been a Nader supporter in 2000! He argued with me on issues that did NOT exist concerning Al Gore and said, "There was really no difference between Gore and Bush." I couldn't believe it. I thought this guy was smarter than that. When asked, "So you wasted your vote on Nader," he replied, "No, I supported him. But I didn't vote at all."

I think that says A LOT about those who still get giddy when they see Nader's name on the ticket. But at least there's hope they'll grow up to be REAL voters... Someday.

Your life is better today because of Ralph Nader. Please educate yourself, then vote for Nader.

Can't you be FOR Nader without being opposed to Obama?  Sure, Nader is partially responsible for Bush, but more responsible are Gore and Kerry for not figuring out how to appeal to those voters.

And by your logic, Clinton should never have been in office.  Ross Perot took WAY more votes from Bush Sr. and Dole than Nader ever took from Dems.

Nader is DIRECTLY responsible for Bush winning in 2000? Is that right? Hmmm....let's see: Even two of the biggest losers in the history of American politics--Dukakis and Mondale--were able to win in their home states when they got crushed in the general election. But golden boy Al Gore (you want to talk "arrogant'?) couldn't be bothered to campaign even half-heartedly in HIS home state of Tennessee in 2000, and what happened? He lost the state. And what if he'd won? Gee, Florida wouldn't even be a footnote now, would it?

And since when did the US become a two-party only system? How DARE a 3rd alternative make a run? Nader has said since day 1 that his platform differs from that of the Democratic party, which has become GOP-Light, and one glance at his platform confirms this is true.

Does Hillary OR Obama believe in a single-payer health care system? Uh, no. Hillary voted for the war. Think Nader would have? Obama had the luxury of not being present for that vote, so it's pretty easy for him to claim the high road there, but one wonders if he really would have had the political courage.

Blaming Nader for the incompetence of the Democratic party post-Clinton is indicative of just how spineless and ineffective the Dems have become. That Gore was even close w/Bush in 2000 is an indictment of HIS faults, not Nader's. How could he not beat that bumbling idiot handily? Well, he managed. Again--all he had to do was win his own home state, and he couldn't even do that.

The Dems were afraid of Howard Dean's "electability" in '04 so they put up that walking stiff Kerry. So, what--it's better to lose closely than to go down swinging as Dean MIGHT have? We'll never know for sure.

It's so easy to blame Nader rather than look in the mirror, when the truth is, he runs to remind Dems that they've abandoned the values that once made the party of FDR great, choosing instead to appeal to right/centrists and doing everything they can to avoid the dreaded "liberal" label, while the GOP made a living embracing "conservative" and are only now paying the price.

It's blame-the-other-guy democrats like yourself who make excuses instead of fighting the good fight that push former Democrats to Nader's camp. He's done more for this country than Obama, Hillary, or Gore combined, and I'll vote for him proudly, without making any excuses to whine-o-crats like you.

Nader did not spoil that election in a simple "vote for nader=one less vote for Gore" way.  His damage that election was much more his repeated and cynical assertion that there was absolutely no significant difference between the candidates.  His negativity and egotism about the democratic process seems typical of his supporters: "If I don't get everything I want, if the nation isn't run on my terms and with my values, we might as well have rule by right wing, fundamntalist warmongers as by a right-centrist environmentally aware policy wonk."  That degree of hubris, of lack of respect ofr the will of the majority, of sanctimonious impracticality, is damaging to a system that we struggle to make work according to the principals that everyone is entitled to speak up and that compromise is the cornerstone of civil politics and a civil society.  While i tend to stand a bit to the left even of Nader, I also recognize that an uncompromising and ideologically intolerant left is the left of Stalin and Castro.

 Certainly Nader was not the sole cause of the bogus outcome of the Gore-Bush election, and I think no one claims he is, but his attitude throughout the race and his inflexibility and refusal to choose the greater good over a personal political agenda show him to be the worst sort of "progressive" and the worst sort of politician.  

I just stumbled into this blog and this is the only post I have read. I am not especially fond of Nadar, but the greater concern to me in reading your blog is the hopeless ignorance with which you write about issues that you clearly are uninformed about.

Blaming Nadar for Gore and the Democratic failure to win the election is thoroughly misguided. It is flat out shocking to think that people who apparently see themselves as having an intelligent, credible and worthy opinion could even think that. It shouldn't even have to be repeated that Gore and the Dems lost on their own. If the marginal percentage that Nadar received was all it took to give the election to Bush then the Democrats lost before Nadar even got into the race. Why we still insist on this fantasy rather than accepting that Gore and party were handed a thriving economy, a pre 911 world without our involvement in war and that beyond Bill Clintons personal problems which were so exploited by his mostly Republican detractors, things were going pretty smoothly and Gore and party completely let it slip away.  

As a life long card carrying Democrat, I am disgusted with my "party of choice," and sick of their collusion with the Republicans in this corrupt system that is running the country into the ground. The fact that Nadar or any third party will never be taken seriously is a painful reality that will only serve to reinforce the closed club that we as taxpayers pay for...this current two party system.

Granted Obama is an attractive and charismatic politician. But if he really is "all that," Nadar won't be a factor. The Obama reality is feel good talk and underlying naivette within the context of the same old, same old. I've read and re-read his papers (available to all on his web site) which reflect his beliefs, policies and intentions. They are hopelessly naive. It is no wonder that so many young people support him, after all he sounds good, looks good, but ultimately reveals nothing on the national stage that anyone can really debate. But when you scratch the surface of how he sees his presidency it becomes painfully clear that it will be even more of a hopeless mess than it is today.

There isn't time, space or energy to dissect the flaws of his plan, but I would encourage everyone to read it and do so with a little experience, wisdom and common sense in mind. It's feel good fantasy that he is selling and all within the context that despite his "change" pitch, he is already a part of a corrupt closed system. And the fact that he is black should no more be a deciding factor either way than the fact tht Hilary is a woman.  

Nadar at least has decades of working for a system that lacks the corruption of the two parites and he has done things and push policies of equality and genuine concern for the citizens of this country without the taint of lobbyists and corporations who run the country that Obama thinks he can lead and clean up.

You dear blogger really need to think and learn before you spout ignorance.  

"I think you know what you can do with your soup spoon" is very offensive and inappropriate on this site.

<cite> In a democratic system, voting your conscience is a sacred responsibility.</cite>

Um, exactly.  And because it *is* a "sacred responsibility" it should not be subjected to the kind of convoluted posturing and curvaceous logic you seem to be advocating.  

I voted for Nader previously.  There are two reasons that I feel voting for him was not wasted:

1) Had all of the other people who told me, "I really think he's the best, but I'm not voting for Nader because I don't think he can win," would have voted for him, he *might* have won.  

2) If I had not voted for him, I would have written in Bugs Bunny - as a no confidence vote for the rest of the presidential candidates on the ballot, because I had *no confidence* in the presidential ability of any of the other candidates.

For one to vote their conscience, they must vote for the candidate they truly feel is most qualified, irrespective of that candidate's perceived chance of winning.  Remember "Dewey Defeats Truman" (http://www.jacklail.com/blog/archives/2008/01/dewey-beats-truman.html)?  There are risks to announcing winners (or losers) too soon in the race.

One last point -

Yes, Nader took just under 3% of the popular vote in 2000, but according to the results here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html, he got *0* electoral college votes - so how did voting for him hand the presidency to Bush?  Nader would have had to get electoral college votes to change the ultimate outcome of the election.

Let us remember that Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, despite Nader's candidacy.  How could you fault a third-party candidate for sabotaging the Democrat in an election in which the Democrat gained the highest percentage of the vote?  Clearly those who opted for Nader instead of Gore were a vast minority.  The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent the very situation that it enabled: the election of a subpar candidate by means of a systemic flaw.  Blame that system, not Nader.

Furthermore, it is precisely the flawed logic that one must vote strategically (ie neglect a more substantively favorable candidate in favor of a candidate who seems more likely to win) that prevents real change from happening in this country.  We call overwhelmingly for change as we lament a stagnant and ineffectual politics, yet when it comes time to exercise our primary means of bringing about the change that we desire, we turn meek and cowadly and vote in step for the big money candidate du jour.  This behavior couldn't be anymore pathetic.  Why wade in the same water we've been boiling in for decades?

THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA OF MY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BOOKS

It is the greatest contradiction of American Democracy that we can all agree the corruption of the electorate is not only pervasive but complete in its institutionalization and yet, rather than excercising the principles of democracy that we believe to be the bedrock of our civilization, we berate those who still hope for America's sake. They are called naive or decisive. The Federalist Papers spent much time speaking of factions. The notion that a plurality of minority factions would balance the political landscape and insure democracy has been all but obliterated in the modern age. That is due largely to the duopolistic intentions of our ruling parties but equally so to the apathy of the American people.

We now subscribe to a new form of enlightened despotism. Our lords offer us a handful of their chosen and we wait for the media to feed us the sorted details of their personal lives until we've found the one we dislike least. "Solarpowered" mentioned their friend in Russia who had only one political candidate, at least they had no illusions of change.

All of this is institutionalized. You can't expect change from within. Why would those in power change what so clearly empowers them? And the rest of you don't have the courage to take back what should always have been yours, your Freedom.

I am not telling anyone to vote for anyone, but Obama's campaign... rather, Zbignew Brzezinski's campaign (with Obama on lead vocals) has intentions of leaving the Middle East in order to challenge Putin's Russia.  So, the exchange of one evil for a greater and more dangerous one to our continent is absurd.  Whatever candidate one chooses should have a plan for leaving the Middle East, including Iran (because, according to Brzezinski, there will be an attack blamed on Iran by then...how he knows this is beyond us all).  But, to put Brzezinski in that position now (rather than under Carter's terrible administration in the 70s) when he has intentions of subjecting our country and its resources, as well as any other countries(') to war with a country that has weapons and intelligence of equal or superior quality to ours is highly dangerous.  Be careful who you vote for.

None of the four current "players" in the presidential "race" are fit to hold ANY public office. First of all, no one should ever seriously consider any candidate who utters the three most dangerous words: "VOTE FOR ME!"

What sort of arrogant, narcissistic hack would have the gall to say those words?

Every one of these people seem to think they're smarter and more worthy than the rest of us.

Being president of the United States is one of the easiest jobs in the world. The law limits what the president can do but they do have the power to surround themselves with truely smart and trustworthy people, but usually don't.

The office requires a person we can trust to faithfully see to it that the constitutional laws of the United States are faithfully carried out. Nothing more, nothing less.

The president is not a "leader" nor a "follower. The president is simply the president, an "oath bound servant of the law." The president is not a "sovereign" - an archaic word meaning "almighty Lord" - we have no "sovereign" in America. The word itself is not even in our constitution.

Yet all those running, except Dr. Ron Paul, have not a clue as to what the job of president entails.

Most seem to believe that the job of president is to exercise power and favors for the benefit of those they are beholden to - people who have given them lots of money - in the hopes they can keep the job as "Lord and Master" of the people until such time they can walk away from the office they have fouled with as much money as possible. (Johnson 0 to $100,000,000.00; Clinton 0 to $25,000,000.00)

People who obsequiously support such candidates seem to want the president to give them something that first has to be stolen from someone else. People who think that way are either children or nuts.

Oh, to see a choice between a Bloomberg and a Dr. Ron Paul rather than the three stooges now preferred by a treasonous press pimping for two utterly corrupted political parties.

I am all for a third party but it needs to start at the bottom like everything else.  Third party candidates need to grow from city, county and state elections first, building the support needed to actually make a difference in the big contests.  You can't just show up at the princess ball  at the last minute and expect a front row seat.  Yes, Nader has done some wonderful  things for this country and most of us, I think, agree with the principals  that he fights for.  Unfortunately, Nader is turning people off now with this same old routine.  He should play the game a little and support a viable candidate, put himself in a position where  he can be picked for an interior cabinet position or help create a government backed environmental movement.  Thats where he could really make a difference.  He's got to realize President Nader is not going to happen.  Obama and Clinton might not be perfect but they are a step in the right direction.  The trick is to keep stepping in the right direction, not backwards, every four years and maybe we will get somewhere.

Hillary and McCain have to apologize for using Obama's middle name?  Thats when the race card has been used to beat white politicians into submission.  Anytime anyone makes an accusation against Obama as a matter of fact, the charge becomes racism.  Well the facts remain, the man is a crooked liar.  As far as my posting http://www.obamatruth.org , the information there is factual, had you bothered to read it. (Yes that means scroll down and READ)  Which also goes to support another statistic, nearly 30 million Americans cant read or comprehend what they read.  No wonder they think Obama is the second coming.

And btw, those of you who would love to blame Nader for the Bush win, when difference in votes were counted in hundreds, hanging chads had to be resolved, and crooked politicians were in question, should look to the registered Democrats who didnt get out and vote for their party, rather than blame the Independents who voted their conscience.  Has anyone bothered to realize Obama is not offering any change? Im sure putting all those people back on welfare, and that he has voted for every tax increase as senator appeals to everyone, let alone his $700k discount on his mansion and adjacent lot gained from criminal Rezko.   His wife thinks his acceptance is "the FIRST great thing this country has ever done". Meanwhile she sits on the board of directors at a non-profit hospital that charges unisured minorities three times as much and insured whites for the same services.  This is just the tip of a long list of shady indescretions on the Obama family's part. No...Obama and his wife arent crooks, and Ive got swamp land I'd like to sell anyone who believes he's not.  

The only reason that Nader took votes is because he offered something that the Democrat and Republicans didn't.  All the Democrats had to do was match him.  They wouldn't.  They lost.

PingBack from http://frankthefrank.info/entry.php?id=kwws%3d22eorjv1wkhurrw1frp2eorjv2grzqiurpwkhwrzhu2dufklyh2533%3b2352582qdghu0uhvsrqvh1dvs%7b

Scheduled drugs ultram er. Ultram er.