"Instead, I can make a vote of conscience, a vote for real change. More realistically, I can contribute to the building of a much-needed third party in the United States."

Or you can waste your vote and contribute to the possibility that McCain would win.  Because that's all that voting for Nader is and would be.  

Wake up, Marc.  You cannot be this naive.  If Nader were truly interested in a third party, he'd be organizing one and would've been in this race from the beginning.  No blatant self-promoters for me, thanks.

Marc L. Hill,  I usually enjoy your criticisms of Barack Obama, but your support for Nader entering the presidential race is plain crazy. This isn't   about  presidential politics as much as it is about Ralph Nader's need to be in the spotlight. This is about Nader power-tripping; this is about Nader losing control of his ego. He still can't admit to giving us George Bush; he still can't admit that there was a huge difference between Al Gore and George Bush. At this point, Ralph Nader is an idiot - and i suspect he knows it too.

Marc, you have just lost a chunk of your political credibility!

Marc,

I've seen you on TV.  You're a bright guy and a breath of fresh air.  I think a vote for Ralph Nader is a wasted vote and I'd hate for you to waste yours.  I'm a Black independent and I've voted for Ralph twice (including last year).  You may not know this, but independents are interested in creating a new way of doing politics.  We don't like parties (third or otherwise!), but want to see a transformation of the political process.  Nader is a BIG SHOT and thinks he's too good to build a movement 24/7 with ordinary folks.  I'm suspect when we only hear from him every 4 years.  I would urge you as a progressive to be part of this important coalition that Barack is bringing together.  It's not really so much about Barack, but this unique and awesome historically coalition that he's helping to create.  Let's elect him and KICK HIS BUTT, let him know that we got him there.  What do you think?

Sorry, Marc, but Nader has had his day.  There is a movement afoot.  You should be ashamed calling Senator Obama the lesser of two evils.  McCain is pure evil--he relishes war and is a captive of the defense industrial complex.

every third party candidate took the margin for 2000 in florida. the caging lists took away the voices of voters that covered the margin for 2000 in florida and again in 2004 and will likely be used yet again in 2008. have you seen the issues that obama simply will not address? there are so many. it's distressing. like universal health care. now, why is that not on his agenda? we all want it. the people want it. what "change" is obama talking about if it isn't change for the better? nader has done more for this country already at this point than any other candidate running. you think he has an ego? be amazed at his restraint. see An Unreasonable Man. know who you are talking about when you talk about nader. it's not naive to vote your conscience. the word for that is "brave." one guess what the word is when you do not vote your conscience. one guess.

Marc, There are man other ways of helping to build a third party. Running a spoiler campaign for the third time is not how one goes about it. One could for intance organise the grassroots on a state by state level around the issues that are dear to Nader's heart: less corporate control of american life, fairness in the Israeli-palestinian conflict, single payer national healthcare system, more enforcement of consumer laws,etc,... I think if Ralph truly cared about undertaking this he would be successfull. There was enough interest in his last two campaigns to demonstrate that he could get enough of a following for a third party to truly emerge. But that would be grunt work and less glamorous than trying to once again erode the Democratic voter base. Nader is slowly ruining his very impressive legacy as a consumer advocate with these useless presidential runs.

Tara, ty, Scientific and others -- what proof do we have of Nader's inflated ego and runs for office as a vanity?  The fact that he believes he can make change?  The audacity to think he has a message that should be heard and a responsibility to sound it?  I'm just saying -- people view him as egotistical because he runs for office, even when many say he shouldn't, because he believes there is change that must happen.  Isn't what we need *more* people who think this way, rather than less?  That will stand against all forces for what they think is right?  Why try to hammer him down for being an exemplar for personal beliefs (the fact that YOU may think he's hurting his own beliefs is not the same thing as that being true).  And indeed, hundreds of thousands, if not a million, people agree with him and have in 2000 AND 2004.  Are we all just insane?  No doubt you think so...  but then again, I think many of us think the same patronizing, pitying thoughts you express for Nader and his supporters, as we recognize: a) Nader has built *several* political movements, and many now prosper outside of himself and his "ego" (Public Citizen and his aid to the Green Party, to name two), b) the Two Party System will never, ever produce enough change to stop the American Empire, nor stop the disastrous exploitation of resources that's going to come crashing about our ears in the next decades...  a vote for either party is delaying the necessary radical break that is the *only* thing that has a chance of stopping a disastrous collapse, environmentally and politically, that will have global implications.  Really, is Obama going to take the steps needed to slow/stop rampant consumerism and Empire?

This bid at reverse jouranlism to attract comments is failing miserably.  Nader is a champion for justice (he said so himself).  However, the sign of a true champion is knowing how and when to fight.  Although he is steadfast in his quest, he fails to recognize that there is no social progress without (significant) social participation.  He is nearly a one man show.  He is for change, but knowone is listening to him.  His best option would have been to endorse Obama and effect some change from the inside like he has in the past.

I hear what you are saying Marc - but the 'lesser of two evils'?  C'mon.

With Hillary and Obama, I don't think that holds true.  

Nader won't make a difference.  He had his chance to command some of the spotlight, but not this time.  A good working consensus is a majority and I think that Obama, which has flaws just like everyone else, is the one who can do this.  You've heard this before right? :)

Nader has done his thing as a consumer advocate, I'll give him that, but if he was serious, he would have run from the beginning.

I don't think in terms of 'wasting your vote' - you have to do what you have to do and if you are convinced that Nader is your man, then I say go for it.

BUT...why not participate in change that is most likely going to happen?  Why not have a say? (in Obama's camp)

I'm tired of voting for the losing team.

peace,

Right on, Marc!  You hit that one out of the ballpark.  And like you I'm a Nader and Kucinich fan.  Too many candidates talk down and over the public.  Not enough discuss the issues that truly will improve society.  Like Nader says, none attack corporate greed.  And like you, I think this two-party system is overrated.  Two parties full of corporated candidates.  We need a for-the-people party or parties.

There's an old Chinese proverb about not attacking your foolish enemies, for in time they will defeat themselves and you may rest as you watch their bodies floating down the river.

I'm so amused to see you clinging to the corpse of Nader.

Cobb--when you condescend like you do it baffles the mind because you surely can't be suggesting that voting democrat has meant voting for a winning team. you can't be serious. i mean your body has been metaphorically floating down that river for eight years now, man. can't you smell the stink? that's not the corpse of nader, Cobb. that's from real failure. that's from not even trying. that's from voting democrat. win or lose, you can expect more of the same. wake up.

 Nothing personal, Marc, but I'm not worried about Nader taking any votes from Sen. Obama. Scientific, Eminka, and others are, I think, spot on. If Nader was interested in anything other than his personal windmills, he'd have built the coalition they are talking about. He's not, and he didn't.  I agree that the issues he's raised are of vital importance to all Americans, but fer ***'s sake, are you really gonna throw your support to this egomaniacal media-whore, and not to the people (Barack/Hillary) who actually have a shot at making those reforms happen?

Like you, I support the policies of Nader as I do Kucinich. I voted for Nader in both elections--only to search the morning paper (North Carolina) for notation of the votes he obtained. I had voted early to assure a count. No notation.

A friend sent a hostile note against Nader's candidacy, calling him, of course, a spoiler. Whyd can't people "get it," that choice mean just that? Choice is freedom.

Marc.  Marc.  Get a grip.  If you are going to devote your energies to a Nader campaign, I can only assume no President since Abraham Lincoln has met your expectations.  And, evil?  Does it advance civilization or anyone's cause to call a person who does not hold beliefs similar to yours, "Evil"?  In your writing, I encourage you to reserve words like "EVIL" for people like Hitler or John Wayne Gacy or Hilliary Clinton.  People whose core agenda was/is so self-serving as to permit them to expect the world to bow before them and permit them all manner of transgressions because they deserve a pass.  And, Nader?  If you talk with him, please encourage him to go home.  Buy a VCR.  Get a dog.  Get off the stage.  The Corvair is gone.

amen marc!  yes, people like us will be called idealists.  but it is really about 1) believing that there should be a multi-party system, 2) rejecting the reform policies of obama and clinton that only give lip service to the people's problems instead of attempting real system level change (economic/social JUSTICE), and 3) not being taken for granted.  Malcom called those black folks who continuously vote for Democrats chumps.  They make many promises during election year and then forget about us for the next four years.    

on another note...someone should do a pycho-social study on white men's overwhelming support of obama.  this is more than just getting swept up in the (roll eyes) movement.  this is like something that clenses them.  it's like a social baptism.  Subconsciously they believe if they vote for a non-offensive/threatening black man they will have been "born again" and forgiven from the sin of priveledge.  halleluiah! and then there will be no more "complaining" about racial inequality.  of course that's just my opinion, and you know what people say about those.--and white men will be in an uproar.  they'll claim to be multicultural and want to work "together" for a better society.  ho hum, forgive my suspicious mind.

Evil -- evil is the banality of letting American empire float on unchallenged.  Obama is possibly as good as a "realistic" candidate can be, but he has no intention, rhetorical or otherwise, of dismantling the system of US empire that brought us centuries of exploitation of other countries.  Clinton abandoned the cause of our brothers & sisters in Haiti (though the abandonment was indeed reinforced under Bush).  Obama has said he won't rule out military attacks on Iran or Pakistan -- despite the fact that there are no realistic bases for attacking either country.  Violating their sovereignty won't stop international terrorism, and a nuclear armed Iran, while frightening, should be less so than a country that's already shown it will use nukes -- i.e. the US.  Look at history, and you will see Democrats and Republicans have been equally bad in terms of foreign interventionism.  And in regards to the poorest Americans, ever notice that they don't vote in large numbers?  Because they've figured out the same thing Nader backers and anti-imperialists have: the only changes from the mainstream parties are for the middle-class and rich, the plight of the poor changes relatively little president to president.

And Nader, the big ego-maniac, sure.  What evidence do you have that he's not building the movement 24/7?  That's what the man does with his time, his one unreasonable passion.  If believing that you can be a voice for change and will not be silenced or smooshed into supporting yet another center-left candidate is egomaniacal, we should all be so.

nader groupies that idiot gave us bush jr.and all the folks who have died in iraq blood is on your hands too.

I'm guessing this was before the "talk white" comment...