news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070205/en_afp/usvote2008nader_070205002157

Nader leaves door open to run for White House in 2008

Consumer champion Ralph Nader, whose candidacy in 2000 may have cost Democratic nominee Al Gore the US presidency, said he was open to a possible run for the White House in 2008.

Nader, a veteran of three attempts at the White House under the Green Party and independent banners, told CNN television he had not decided yet but that he is committed to offering voters more choices than the two mainstream parties, the Democrats and Republicans.

"It's really too early to say. I don't like long campaigns," said Nader, who will turn 73 this month, after being asked about the election to replace President George W. Bush next year.

"But I'm committed to trying to give more voices and choices to the American people on the ballot. That means more third parties, independent candidates and to break up this two-party elected dictatorship that is becoming more and more like a dial for the same corporate dollars."

After a lifetime of consumer, environmental and anti-big business advocacy and years of dabbling in presidential elections, in 1996 Nader was drafted to lead the Green Party ticket against incumbent President Bill Clinton and Republican senator Bob Dole.

He got less than one percent of the vote that year, but four years later, he ran again under the Green Party banner against Republican Bush and Democrat Gore, Clinton's vice president.

With the race extremely tight, Democrats bashed the Greens for taking away votes from their party, using the slogan "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

Nader pulled in nationally 2.7 percent of the vote. The election came down to a disputed vote count in Florida, where Nader received nearly 100,000 votes, far more than the 537-vote lead Bush had over Gore in the official count.

Nader's critics argue that had he not run, his supporters would have backed the Democrats and given the election to Gore.

Nader ran again as an independent in 2004 in the race between Bush and John Kerry, and garnered only 0.4 percent of the national vote.

He told CNN Sunday that he might run again in 2008 if the Democrats chose Senator Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton's wife, as their candidate, saying "I don't think she has the fortitude" to be president.

He said he believed Democrats would back Clinton, "even though she is a corporate Democrat" with whom his backers differ on the Iraq war, universal health insurance, and other key issues.

This man is insane. He needs to be locked up for the good of the country.

:bad:

Just heard what I think was an outstanding commit on Nader running by James Carville on CNN. He said how he thought it was funny that only a Green Party candidate could keep the Greenest candidate ever, Al Gore, from being President.

:clap:

Why does someone like Ralph Nader even want to waste his time running??? He must know he can never win. He is a real pain in the ass. :bad:

A candidate of diminishing returns. I wouldn't lose sleep over his bleating. G-O-A-T! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Ralph Nader comes out to be seen
Each 4 years with a message that's Green
He hollers and yells
and has books that he sells
Then absconds with the Green from the scene.


This time he may actually be doing us a favor- he seems only to
oppose Hillary
I don't think he would dare run if gore was the dem nominee

:laugh: :clap:

Ralph Nader will do whatever it takes to inflate his ego. Even if it means helping to flush this country down the drain. He is green but I believe it's more envy than care for our country.

Let him kick Hillary around and then, with any hope, he'll disappear

Unfortunately, he won't kick anyone around. He'll spit out lies about how the Dem. candidates are no different from the Rep. candidates, and then, come election day, he'll siphon off votes from the Dem. nominee, and once again, we'll end up with a Rep. in office.

What's wrong with this man? :mad:

We better not end up with another republican in office. If Nader would just go away, like I said he is a pain in the ass. :angry:

Give up on Al Gore. The man is one of the biggest hypocrites in the country. How many homes does he own? How large are they?? Is he flying all over the country on a private jet??? He talks the talk of conservation, but he isn't walking the walk. We need another Republican in 2008!!!!!

OMG - a bushie sock- puppet in our midst![B] :o

America closes the door on Nader running in 2008

:!: :dripple: :mad:

Truthdetector, you're not worth the time it would take me to answer your nonsense, so I'm pasting in my response to you from the other thread:

Al Gore will have done more to save this planet from the climate crisis by jetting around the world than he would have done by staying home (and going from place to place by horse and carriage). There are certain inconvenient truths we have to deal with, and one of those is that a man can't go from country to country these days without creating some pollution. It turns, out, btw, that jet pollution only contributes 1.5% of the total worldwide carbon emissions in a year. So Gore's contribution to the problem is infinitesimal.

I'll take the pollution caused by his globe-trotting any day over risking him not getting his message out to people around the world.

In addition, as was pointed out, Gore offsets the pollution he creates by investing in projects that combat global warming. His houses, just for the record, are about as close to carbon neutral as a house can be.

Should he be living in an unheated shack somewhere?

The fact that a person may own multiple homes isn't an issue. It's how that home is run that's the issue. Gore's houses are basically carbon neutral, and what little carbon emissions they do create is offset by him investing heavily in projects to combat global warming.

Gore is probably the least hypocritical person on the face of this earth, in addition to being one of the smartest and most honorable, which is why you right-wingers can't stand the thought of him. He's a real threat to your arrogant lifestyle and way of thinking.

The people elected him to be their president in 2000, and they'll do it again in 2008. Get used to it.

I look forward to the day when I don't have to barf every time I see the current Idiot-in-Chief's stupid face on TV. Everyone's advising him to get out of Iraq. Hey, no problem. We'll just send more troops to Iraq, against the advice of all the experts!

And it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn.
Next stop will be Iran.
And it's five, six, seven, open up them pearly gates.
Ah, there ain't no time to wonder why.
Whoopee, we're all going to die.

(Amended version of Fixin' To Die Rag, Country Joe and the Fish)

While I don't care for Nader and wish he would go away from politics I was surprised to hear him say on The Daily Show last night that he wasn't really the cause of Gore losing in 2000. That Gore did win the election and it was taken away from him by the corrupt Republican machine in Florida. (Not the exact wording but as close as I can remember, I turned him off after that.)

Well, it is true that Gore won Florida despite Nader. The problem is that Nader took away enough votes to make it so Bush & Co. were ABLE to take away Florida. The election was close enough that there were questions as to who won (well, not really, but they MADE questions). Had Gore been ahead by the thousands of votes Nader took from him, it would've been much more difficult for the SCOTUS and Jeb and Katherine Harris to do what they did. As it is, Bush supposedly won Florida by 537 votes. Had Gore had those thousands of votes from Nader, the election would've gone to Gore, and that would've been that.

I'm aware that Nader may have taken thousands of votes away from AL GORE, but yes, AL still WON the 2000 election. Blaming Nader is just a way the republicans and Bushies use to cover up the truth that the 2000 election was stolen. So it was easier for them to blame Nader than to admit the truth. It's kind of like all liars. Making excuses.

Unfortunately, you shouldn't be surprised to hear Ralph Nader take no responsibility for what happened in the 2000 election in Florida or New Hampshire.

Gore won. But Ralph Nader knowingly made it close enough for the Republicans to steal Florida. Without Nader, it wouldn't have even been close. He just rationalizes his behavior and blames others.

I am still waiting for an admission of error and an apology Mr. Nader. That's the least you can do. :mad:

I personally respect Ralph Nader but wish he wouldn't gum up the election if Gore runs.

I used to respect Nader, but not after he's done what he's done to presidential politics. The most egregious thing he did was say that there was no difference between the Rep. Party and the Dem. Party. That's an outright lie, and he knows it.

pugs= screw the little guy. fend for yourself. ahoy for the big corps and corporate welfare.
dems= help the disadvantaged, elderly, sick and disabled. promote the general welfare in the nation as it says in the constitution.
is there a difference ? think hard.

What Nader said is probably true in that the corrupt Republican machine actually cost Gore the election.

Couple that with the fact that Gore should have won by a wide margin. He ran a poor campaign, falling behind by 9 or 10 points with a week in a half left in the campaign. He kept looking at the polls wich said most of America agreed with him on the issues, and figured the campaign was about stating his position on the issues and he would walk in. It wasn't working.

Then Bush said his famous line about "do the Democrats think Social Security is some sort of government program". In fairness to Bush, he probably meant to say "govrnment giveaway program", a typical conservative phrase, but got caught int he moment, (in case you missed it, Bush is not a good speaker).

For once-for once-Gore saw his opportunity and took it. It might have been one one misspoken sentence for Bush, but all the other verbal messups Bush had made in the campaign finally hit people with the idea that Bush didn't have the requirements for the job. That is when Gore threw his strategy out the window and aggressively went after Bush. By most polls, Gore rose about 9 points in the last 10 days, which is amazing. In the last days, Bush was in virtual freefall. Gore did win back enough to get the popular vote, but just fell short of the Electoral Vote, aided by Republican thuggery.

If Gore had woken up just a couple of days earlier, if he had dropped his laid back style and WENT AFTER Bush the way he did in the last 10 days, Gore would have cruised to a wide enough margin so that Florida couldn't be fixed. You can only fix an election so much, can only shave a few votes here and there, and Gore would have been beyond that.

So in a sense, Nader was right. The Republicans did steal Florida, and Gore should have run a better campaign-he only ran a good one the last 10 days or so.

On the other hand, if Nader had not run, Gore would have won Florida easily, despite Republican thievery and Gore's own early weaknesses as a candidate. So in a sense, Nader did cost Gore.

It is sincerely hoped that if Gore runs, he runs like he did in the last 10 days of 2000, and that people realize that a vote for Nader is indeed a vote for the Republicans.

I'm already on record as agreeing with this view. Although not much of a believer in fate, I'm nevertheless nstarting to think that she had other plans for Gore.

I don't see the following posted anywhere on this forum, so I'll post it here. It's one of the better articles on Nader's thoughts about running again:



The National Ledger

Hillary Clinton Stars as Al Gore: Ralph Nader Ponders Another Run
By Roger Simon
Jun 22, 2007

Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters. "You know the two parties are still converging -- they don't even debate the military budget any more," Nader said in a 30-minute interview. "I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties."

Even the possible entry of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race as an independent might not dissuade Nader. "He is interesting, (but) unpredictable," Nader said of Bloomberg. "I really like the stand he took against smoking, but he goes along with corporate welfare in New York and tax-funded stadiums. So he is unfinished in that way."

Nader would have little or no chance of winning the presidency should he run, but he doesn't need to win to affect the outcome: Many Democrats still blame Nader for draining enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida in 2000 to elect George W. Bush.

And while Nader, 73, realizes he might once again be accused of being a "spoiler" candidate, he says the Democrats could win in 2008, unless they spoil things for themselves. "Democrats have become over the years very good at electing very bad Republicans," Nader said. "Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waiver, how not to be authentic."

While Nader praised two candidates who have almost no chance of winning their party's nomination -- Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel -- he was severe in his criticism of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

"She is a political coward," Nader said. "She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn't even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband."

Chris Lehane, who worked in Bill Clinton's White House and Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said of a possible Nader candidacy: "His entry into the race, even to those who voted for him in 2000, would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself at the expense of the best interests of the public. Ralph Nader is unsafe in any election."

Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed," on the deficiencies of American automobiles, catapulted him to national fame in 1965. Since then, he has authored several more books, founded dozens of consumer-interest organizations, run for president three times, hosted "Saturday Night Live," appeared on "Sesame Street" and was a character on "The Simpsons."

He has, in other words, considerable name recognition and is an experienced organizer. And when I asked him if he saw any major candidate in any party forestalling his own run for president in 2008, he replied: "Very unlikely. Very unlikely. The requirement is almost logistical. It requires tens of thousands of volunteers."

The volunteers are needed, Nader says, to gather signatures to get his name on the ballot in the 50 states, an arduous and expensive proposition. Nader also said he would need a "network of pro-bono lawyers to fight for ballot access."

Nader admits that Mayor Bloomberg's wealth could make it far easier for him to get ballot access. "A multibillionaire like Bloomberg could immediately turn it into a three-cornered race," Nader said.

If Nader runs, he would emphasize the "ever-increasing corporate power in our society" and "the expanding disconnect between the growth of the economy and the distribution to people who work hard but don't get the fruits of it."

Nader also believes the United States should withdraw from Iraq over a six-month period, have the United Nations sponsor new elections and leave no U.S. forces behind.

In Nader's scenario, the "bottom falls out of the insurgency, the United States brings the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis together, and all you are left with are criminal gangs, and criminal gangs can be dealt with."

When Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000, he got only 2.74 percent of the popular vote. But in Florida, Nader's votes may have been critical. Gore ended up losing the election to Bush by 537 votes in a state where Nader got 97,448 votes. Many believe that had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have gotten thousands of those votes and become president.

Nader is unrepentant, though he says people still stop him on the street to berate him about it. When they do, Nader tells them: "Why don't you blame the thieves? Why don't you blame Tallahassee and the Supreme Court? Bush's people stole the election!"

Nader calls the attacks on him "political bigotry." "What was our crime? We used our constitutional rights to run," he said. "We had proposals that if Gore had picked up on, he would have landslided Bush."

Among the proposals, Nader said, was a "living wage, cracking down on corporate crime against consumers and pensions, not to mention an authentic health-insurance agenda."

Nader says, however, that he and Gore have patched things up.

"Yeah, he is very friendly," Nader said. "You wouldn't believe what he wrote when he autographed his book ("An Inconvenient Truth") to me when I stood in line at the bookstore. It was like, 'To my good friend, with great respect.'"

Nader says that if they don't implode, the Democrats are very likely to win the presidency and retain control of Congress in 2008.

So why would he run at all? "What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people," he said. "And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."

Nader is a disillusioned egotist who needs to retire and vanish from public life. He tries a run each year and looses miserably and for good reason. He's not qualified!

A third party will only give the election to the Republicans. How blind are you people.

At the moment, I don't see that it matters much which party wins the White House. Both batches of candidates are up to their armpits in special interest money -- so much so that CNN doesn't predict the "horse race" by poll numbers anymore but rather, by number of dollars grubbed by each candidate.

A third party candidate with some real impact is probably the only thing that can save what's left of American democracy. Reconstructing it will take much longer. Take a longer view, Al001. Unless there's some kinda status quo shake up, this one election isn't gonna change much of anything -- except to shift governing from the hands of those who love to serve special interests into the hands of those who don't have a choice but to do likewise.

Ralph may be everything you say, but he's the only candidate interested in injecting some crucial people-issues into the election conversation. Not until another third party/Independent candidate with integrity steps up to the plate will Nader stop hurling himself into presidential elections. So either get used to it, or draft Gore (or some other decent person) to run as an Independent.


As for the Republicrats, David Michael Green's latest rant pretty much says it all.

http://www.counterpunch.org/green06222007.htmlMy Webpage

If it doesn't matter much to you than why not just let George Bush back in.

Of course it matters. There is no third party candidate with some real impact and especially not Nader. He may think he does since he has tried so many times but he has done miserable each time. Not even close, ever and now he wants to do it again and there are people trying to convince the rest of us to go for him. This is crazy.

We may need a third party that's not on someones payroll but we won't get one this year or the next or the next. Green said a great deal that everyone already knew, but his first statement was the most true he could make..."To begin with, there are no third choices." There is no third party, and there is no third party candidate that can come close to winning. They may, if lucky, get 20 to 25% of the voter. How will that be good for America?

I believe your very young and idealistic and I admire you for that but build the house before you move in. It will take years and this is not the year to begin. I suggest you take another look at things and an honest look not an emotional one. If you vote for a Green or some other third that thinks they have the answers you might as well save you time and either not vote or vote for a Republican.

I would have to agree that most of the current field of major candidates are in up to their ears in special-interest money. But I totally disagree that there's no difference between the Dems. and Reps. That's a fantasy the Greens clove to in 2000, and I hope your eyes have been opened enough to realize that there's an enormous difference in our world because George Bush has been president rather than Al Gore, thanks in no small part to Ralph Nader.

I may not care much for the declared candidates in either party, but there is no way a rational person can say that it won't make much difference if we elect a Dem. or a Rep. This specious argument is what got us to where we are in the first place, and continuing to believe it will only get us more of the same. The world is much too dangerous a place these days to play fast and loose with some kind of pie-in-the-sky notions about taking the long view and fixing our political system. Yeah, it's not perfect, but how many more Americans will die if Nader once again inserts himself in this race and blows it for the Dems.? What will happen to our planet, our civilization, if Nader is a spoiler again and we get a Rep. in office who doesn't believe the climate crisis is a crisis? There's just too much at stake here, in a very real way, and I find myself filled with an anger I didn't feel in 2000 over the prospect of people still falling for this ridiculous lie that Nader has been peddling.

I'm sorry, but Ralph Nader has been singing this song for too long, and it's a bad-ass song. He knows he doesn't have a chance of winning. So his candidacy is supposed to inject crucial people and issues into the debate. Come again? The only "crucial" person and issue Nader injects is himself and his inflated ego. His pitiful candidacy didn't have any impact on Americans in 2000 other than to throw the election to the Republicans. It didn't make any difference in the national debate whatsoever.

So who needs to get over something? I think Nader and the Greens need to get over their fantasy that they can change American politics by having a third-party candidate spewing lies and fantasies to a naive populace who don't understand that by voting for the third party, they're throwing their vote away and gambling with our country's future.

Sorry if I sound peeved, but honestly, you'd think Nader would have learned his lesson. We all agree that the system needs fixing, but Nader's solution does nothing but sell America short. Let's have someone with some real clout and real brains work to fix the system. Someone like, um, oh, I don't know . . . :unsure: . . . Al Gore? :D

I know you said, zoya, that we should draft Gore. Well, we're doing our darnedest to do that. But what if we're unsuccessful? Will you still cast your vote for someone whose only purpose is to siphon votes away from a major-party candidate? One reason Nader doesn't have the impact he'd like is because he's a loser. He should have remained a consumer advocate. He was good at that. Now he just comes off as being crazy. Ross Perot, as eccentric as he was, at least succeeded in getting a good chunk of the total vote. People listened to him. No one wants to listen to Nader drone on about how there's no difference between the two parties. People know better now. At least I hope they do.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I agree, EM and Al001. If Ralph Nader really wanted to bring important issues front and center during the election, he could do that without running. He could write a book. He could do what Al Gore is doing - go around and make speeches about our political system and democracy and bring up key issues such as social security, taxes, immigration, etc. And keep talking about these issues until the candidates address them in more detail.

I could see Nader running if he really thought he could win and thought he could make a difference to our democracy and help repair the cracks in its foundation. But I think he just wants to be a spoiler and likes the attention. I wouldn't be surprised if the Repugs were paying him to run - just to help give them the election.

Since Nader does not pose a real threat of winning the election, neither the Repugs or the Democrats are threatened enough to talk about the important issues at hand. And there is a HUGE difference between the two major parties. I believe Earthman (up above) did an excellent job of distinguishing the two.

Another point from something said above - I really don't think Gore ran a poor campaign last time. I just think the Repugs were really good with their smear machine and labels and people bought into it - not to mention that they were also good at stealing an election. Just my honest opinion.

I also think there are many people at GSC and AlGore.org that are doing their damndest to get Gore to run. We're all writing letters to him and there are those that did an excellent job at the book signing tours, just to name a couple of examples.

The key is to be persistent and not give up.

Ralph Nadar is a lunatic. I can't stand that SOB. Just about all of the events of the past six years wouldn't have happened if he weren't in the 2000 race.

That he's a lunatic does not bother me. That he's a liar does. The kind that calls you pal before he screws you. And he's an attention whore. Not the kind that grabs a bull-horn and stands on a soap box. The kind that pisses in your punch bowl and laughs.

Let me explain my disdain for that turd.

Environmental organizations, some a bit more eager than Gore's 2000 advisers (through the msm filter anyway) to put the environment first offered some early support to the Green party in order to stump the green issues. It was a GRAVE MISTAKE on the part of those organizations.

I posted in KOS recently regarding the details (note especially link to Carl Pope's letter regarding the Sierra Club endorsing Gore, and reacting to Nader's betrayal in his spoiler state focus).

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/6/21...16/712/726#c726

I almost welcome the Nader Raiders into political conversations these days. They STILL try to make the case that the Democrats are the same as Republicans. Well Mr Nader Raider, I'll see that Inhoffe and raise you a Boxer. They just sound stupid anymore and do nothing but solidify the case for Democrats.

Even though I may welcome them, I still hope the stupid little Nader Raider vans break down on their way to Ohio.

Sorry for the rant. The anger is still with me.

Come on Nasty, let us know how you really feel :spikey:

As a note many of Nader's Raiders tried to talk sense to Ralph back in 2000. They warned him that all Darth Nader would accomplish by running and garnishing 2 or 3 million votes would be to drastically increase the likelihood of placing George W. Bush in the White House. Nader didn't hear or didn't care. After all, Al Gore and George W. Bush are about the same anyway, right? :wacko: :wacko: :dripple:

This attitude is still out there. I encountered it last night looking at feedback to the Tad Daley article at CommonDreams.org :!:

Will they ever learn? Maybe we should elect all fascists to help the collapse of capitalism :dripple:

The people who buy into the Nader lie that there's no difference between the two parties tend to be young, naive, and, well, let's just say young and naive so I don't get myself into trouble. Anyone who can say there's no difference after seeing what George Bush has wrought upon this country during his six-year reign of terror is either extremely naive or extremely . . . okay, I won't say it.

The anger is still with me, too, ND. :mad:

I will never get over 2000. PERIOD. I have no plans to get over it, no desire to get over it, I furthermore don't think it would be healthy to get over it. This is a good example of when it is healthy and creative to turn one's anger/righteous wrath into ACTION. For the rest of my life, I'll be doing whatever I can to help America and the world heal from what happened in 2000.

And there is something I will never forget, a conversation I had with an intelligent, passionate woman in my neighborhood association before the 2000 election. I really liked this person, she had a lot of integrity and would often stand up and say something unpopular if she felt it needed saying, etc. However, while we agreed on many issues, there were one or two things I really disagreed with her about and, as earthmom alluded to re Naderites, I felt her (this woman from the 'hood association) opinions on those few things were born from ignorance, basically. And one of the two things I disagreed with her most passionately about, was that she was planning to vote for Nader and trying to get anyone else who would listen to her to vote for him as well.

Well, one night after a neighborhood association meeting, we got into a passionate "discussion" that I will never, EVER forget and that I actually think of often. Basically, it consisted of me falling to my KNEES and BEGGING her not to waste her vote on Nader, but to please, please, PLEASE vote for Gore, because not only was he clearly the candidate who should be elected, but beyond that, if she voted for Nader, and if enough people voted for Nader who would otherwise vote for Gore, BUSH WOULD WIN. "Well," she countered, "if I didn't vote for Nader, I wouldn't vote for anyone. They are both the same." WHAT?!!!!!!! How can you say that? How can you think that? How can ANYONE think that Gore and Bush are "the same", let alone share anything in common except for both possessing one X and one Y chromosome apiece?!!!!!!!!!!! She proceeded to tell me there was no difference between the Democratic Party and the Repugnant Party and blah, blah, blah, and I just got more and more empassionated, incredulous and LOUD and basically ended up SHOUTING at her and practically grabbing her by the shoulders and saying, look, if you vote for Nader, Bush is going to RUIN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, p.s., I saw her years later, just before the 2004 election, at another neighborhood event. Didn't I go right up to her and without so much as exchanging a pleasantry or two, I said "Do you still think Bush and Gore are 'the same'? PLEASE tell me you plan to vote Democratic in the election!!!!!!!!!!!" She turned white as a sheet and said "Oh God, yes."

Well, it was too late by then, sister, because Gore wasn't even running and, well, whatever, Bush either won again or stole the election again, but the bottom line is, the man is STILL in the White House, ruining our country more and more by the second, and it is all because people like her somehow could not see a difference between Bush and Gore, which to me is like not seeing a difference between the Chernobyl nuclear reactor site and Glacier National Park, but WHATEVER. The bottom line is: if I could clearly, clearly, oh so clearly see exactly what would happen with the 2000 election then why couldn't NADER?!!!!!!! Why did he choose THAT YEAR to run, when the Democrats were already sporting the best candidate imaginable, one with integrity, idealism, vision, experience, leadership ability, ETC.! He picks 2000 to run? Irresponsible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, do NOT leave me in a room alone with Nader. I used to admire the man before 2000. Now I can't even think about him without spontaneously combusting.

edited to add: Oh yeah, and I also saw this chick on the city TV station (saw this between our first "discussion" in 2000 and the time I ran into her and confronted her in 2004 at the second 'hood event), at a City Council meeting during the Open Forum section, asking the city to adopt a resolution protesting the war in Iraq. I thought, um, if you hadn't voted for NADER then there wouldn't BE a war in Iraq!!! :angry: Guess there is a slight diff between Gore and Bush afterall, HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Had she not voted for Nader, she wouldn't have been standing there a few years later with tears streaming down her face, begging the City Council to protest the war.

further edited to add: btw, I forgot to note that we are in FLORIDA, which just makes the above all the more intense. Her vote mattered. I think she gets that now, but it is more than a tad too late. But the person who really has my wrath is Nader himself because he knew exactly what the implications were of his choice to run in 2000 against the best candidate the Democratic Party has ever fielded, and with the spectre of handing the election to not just the Republicans but oh, what a Republican. True, no one could have imagined just how awful Bush would truly be for the country and the world, but the tiny fraction of realizing how awful he would be that the human imagination could come up with at that time should have been way more than enough to make Nader decide NOT to run, if he had any integrity at all.

Hangingchad, your post blew me away!! I feel so much of the same sentiment that you do about the 2000 election. There is a die-hard Republican in my office and it just makes my blood boil to think how she threw her vote away on Bush when we could have had a REAL president. Bush has run this country in the ground so bad that I am convinced that Gore is the only one who can get this country back on the right track - of course it's going to take some time to repair all the damage. But he is more than capable of doing it.

It just frustrates me as well, how others could not see Bush for what he was and see the gem we had in Al Gore.

There was a time (many moons ago) that I voted for a Republican - when I thought the candidate would be good for our country. But Bush has just about guaranteed that I will never vote for a Republican again!! I believe hell would have to freeze over before I considered that!!

Just wanted to commend you on an excellent post and let's all hang in there and not give up on Gore!!

By the way, I don't plan on getting over 2000 either!! ;)

Thank you, Texan for Gore!!! I appreciate it. :Y:

We all know hanging chad rocks, and we're so glad to have her here! :clap:

:dance: Thank you, earthmother. That means so much coming from you!

:wub: :D