My response, "I Don't Know How To Put This Ralph Nader, But Fuck You":

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27171709

Who does he think is going to vote for him? Bloomberg won't even run because McCain and Obama (now that he is the likely nominee) both have appeal to independents. It seems there is no room in there for him.

Nader's not going to get that many votes. So, the Democrats should just take a cue from the Republicans and fund a Nader for their side. Obama should schedule a backdoor meeting with Huckabee, give him $15 million in a black briefcase, and let the rest work itself out. The Republican Party is on the brink of splintering into two parties: Crazy Christians on the one hand and the Corporate War-Mongers on the other, so let's just facilitate that eventuality with a little push of our own. Success!

Fuck Ralph Nader.

At least Ralph uses his critical reasoning to define his position. It is not a positioning for "electability" or spinning his positions so as not to offend. He is absolutely right if we are ever able to erode the "two horses, same color" party system we now endure. Wait for Bloomberg to enter!

"For example, nobody can reasonably deny that Nader's 2000 campaign changed the course of history."

Josh's 'Bush's Chief Enabler' remark and now this. Ugh. People around here--at least the journalists--should know better, I would have thought.

Nader also is probably nly relevent with a Clinton nomination. Nader's following has almost always been youth heavy and I just don't see a scenario where young people leave Obama for Nader. But certainly, you could see how Obama followers could vote Nader in protest of a Clinton nomination (which would only happen at this point by superdelegates undoing the pledged vote count).

With Obama as the nominee, the only people who will vote Nader are the people who would not vote otherwise because they feel the two parties are too close to Wall St. (a really not that off the wall opinion).

Again, let me say that I think that Nader is making a huge error in running again and will continue to lose respect and support rather than gain it.

Nader and Clinton are two peas in a pod... they are willing to take down the best opportunity to advance their agendas in the name of their over-sized egos... the end result, a suicide bomb.... both have outlived their usefulness to the country and their country's needs... they can only hope the truth will not be spelled out on their tombstones: co-destroyers of America......

Indeed, CTVoter. One might find it cross referenced with megalomaniac...

but as a great thinker and beneficiary of Nader once said.... fool me once shame on you... fool me twice.... the point is you ain't gonna fool me a second time...

if you want evidence of ralph's repuglitard backers, check out ralph's signature gathering campaign in Pennsylvania. most of the cash came from registered repuglitards. The repuglitard outfit that ralph hired to collect signatures butchered the job (lots of phony signatures)

but here's the funny part about ralph's new candidacy

the repuglitards are BROKE too

the RNC is about to be charged under RICO for money laundering

st john mccain had to resort to PUBLIC FINANCING in the general election cuz they cant raise 100,000,000 like they did in 2000

sorry ralph, the repuglitards who bought your campaign in 2004 are a little tight this year. You're on your own this time

but thanks for helping the repuglitards for free this time

some sold out pieces of shit really know how to give value for the repuglitard dollars they recieve

See Obama's response to Nader's decision here:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/obama-on-nader.php

Everyone who analyzes the 2000 election does it from the point of view that Nader joined the race on November 1st, and proceeded to grab just enough votes to deny a victory to Gore. The fact is---he was there for several months, and he caused Gore, and to a lesser extent Bush, to talk about subjects they would not have discussed very much. There is no way to calculate the effects of Gore talking about the environment, because nader made him, and taking votes away from Bush in doing so. There is no way to calculate whether Bush or Gore spent more time and money in certain states, because the presence of third and fourth parties changed the overall dynamics of what the race was about.------------------------------------no--far easier to do the simple arithmetic of letting nader join the race on November 1st, and calculating the effect. Far easier, and wrong.

But that was 2000. He is in a position to do some real damage this time----because both democrats still in the nomination race have terribly flawed healthcare plans----the contrast with nader's position could really cause trouble. I am voting for obama--and i do hope Nader reconsiders---

This might settle the question as to whether or not Hillary is going insane. Huffington Post just posted a video of Hillary mocking Obama's message of change and a new direction in politics, and by "mocking" I mean perhaps the most pathetic, childish display I think I've ever seen from a politician. Keep in mind, once again, that she cannot win the primary, the math just doesn't add up, meaning she is mocking our Democratic nominee. This is beyond contemptuous. I think she planned this campaign President Hillary or bust, and this is the bust...apparently she doesn't care about her political future if she can't be president, which makes sense since her taking up a seat in the Senate for the last 7 years has only been because she wanted to be president, not because she cared about making a difference or changing anything, so I guess if she can't get there, she'll go out in a ball of flames, taking everyone around her with her. I'm actually shocked by how crazy she is getting; it IS a bit like watching Brittney shave her head is it not?

Oh, and keep in mind this is the same Hillary who just two days ago smiled and shook Obama's hand at the debate and said she was honored to stand next to him. Do we need any more proof that her "special moment" at the end of that debate was nothing but scripted bullshit?

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27123632

Nader and Clinton need to drop out and throw their lack of political muscle behind the last Democrat in the race . . . Gravel.

Why shouldn't Nader run?

Because he ran in 2000 saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore?

Because he went from 2.7 percent in 2000 to less than .4 percent in 2004?

Because he's a doddering old fool drunk on his own press?

Because he has beshitted a once sparkling reputation as a public servant?

I can think of more if you like...

Eric and Josh you should both know better than this. Serious studies have been done of Nader's 2000 campaign, its intentions and effects, and it really is time for Dem operatives to get over it, because your history is wrong.

Click the link and watch the video--for once this is a Russert show worth watching. Obama handles the issue just about perfectly, and Nader debunks Josh & Eric's asinine historical analysis very succinctly, then shows again why he drew such a strong following then--he's still the only person on TV, pol or pundit, willing to state the obvious demonstrable truth that Bush &co stole that election. He's still the only person capable of getting on MTP willing to join the majority of Americans in supporting single-payer healthcare, or to call Israeli policies what they are, and on and on.

I'm sorry he never wholly embraced, and has now abandoned, the Green party, and hasn't focused on the voting reforms that are the prerequisite to getting his issues the hearing they deserve. But after 8 years of Democratic party complicity in Bush's crimes, I'm sick of the whining demonization of this American hero. He didn't affect the 2004 election, and affect this one, so get the fuck over it already.