If Edwards wins the nomination, I could support him whole-heartedly. But I gotta tell ya, if Kerry is the nominee I'll probably be voting for Nader again.

Kerry is a terrible speaker who will say anything to get elected. In that respect, he's shrub-jr. The only reason Ive heard to vote for him is that hes not shrub. That wont cut it.

I dont want someone to vote against. I want someone I can vote for. Nader is a champion for the little guy and a Great American. I'll be glad to vote for him.

YAY

Great headline.

Not the part about Nader running, just having Bush around for so long.

In other news, Dubya doing Oval Office Snoopy-dance in his bunny slippers.

the veteran consumer advocate said he was running out of a strong desire to evict Bush from the White House.


GOOD ONE.

I choose coke, i like pepsi,, replace brandname with your politician of choice.

Nader is for the little guy?

BWAHAHAHAHHA!

Wake up:

http://realchange.org/nader.htm

Egomaniac & Asshat

Oh Jesus, no...

I'm sorry, but things are so desperate, I'd vote for the dual-chaingun resurrected Wolfenstein Hitler if he'd beat Bush. Hell, that's a totally cool president, except for the Hitler part.

Nader will go down in history as the man who kept Bush in office for two terms. Way to go, loser.

I don't think the same people who were willing to vote for Nader in the last election, will be doing so is this one.

I'd be willing to bet they hate Bush so much they'll see any democrat as a better choice.

I don't think he'll draw off nearly enough to make a difference this time around.

I don't care what puppets the democrats decide to run: if you vote for Ralph freakin' Nader, you are completely unworthy of any respect.

Here is a 70 year old man who knows he has no chance of accomplishing anything--the Green Party won't even support him this time--and yet he knows he makes this blatant grab for attention. What an asshat.

Two words:

"Vote swapping"

http://voteswap.com/

If Nader costs the democrats the election will they form a lynch mob or just make him a persona non grata.

This is one of the better headlines I can recall seeing. Not hilarious, but it's hard to dispute anything it says.

I'd vote for him

You know, as much as this is not farkically correct, if a democratic candidate can not beat Bush with Nadar maybe people don't want that person to be president. What does that say? People want a different candidate. Stuff like ralphdontrun.net is complte bullshiat. It only goes to show that people do not want a particular candidate to win the election. But is Nadar didn't run, Gore would have won. But he didn't. If they did they would vote for him (or her) and not some third party candidate. Well, we cant' win if you run, so don't run, mmmkay? All those people who would vote for you would settle for our candidate if you didn't run.

Anyone but Bush whatever year this is. You know, because that is a great way to pick a president. Who cares what he or she stands for and what platforms he or she supports, they are not Bush and that is all that matters. People who say anything that stupid should not be allowed to vote.

Oh, and vote libertarian.

If getting Bush out office is so important, maybe the Dem's should look at voting for Nader. If the only result wanted is ABB, why not run with Nader, you are already saying there is no chance for Kerry or Edwards to win.

I wonder how much money he's getting in support from the Republican party.

Yeah I'm sure that's it...

I wounder how this will affect the Sharpton campaign? I seems that Al has the most to lose from another well known alternative candidate.

That being said I think both are better than Kerry or Edwards

/Bring back Dean

hooray!

John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."

I tend to be a Bush supporter. For the life of me, why is Nader doing this to the Demos? Any vote for Nader siphons off votes from the Demo candidate, just helping the Bush re-election effort. Reactron's comment was right on target.

Ozoneman

Because Kerry and Edwards are pro Corporate Giant, while Nader is not.

Yea! Go Ralph!
Bush in '04!

Its getting so part of a viable stratergy is to have a nutball running that sucks votes away from the opposing guy more than your guy.

Kind of like Perot in 92, the Bushers figure if Perot didn't run, their daddy beats Clinton. Unproven, but possible.

In 96 Clinton was so favored there was no 3rd candidate, and he won easily.

In 2000 the third candidate showed up on the left instead of the right, and voila, we have the right winger guy winning.

They hope to repeat this year.

Its an interesting strategy, stealth candidacies. And it really does make one wonder if Nader is receiving any support from the RNC.

Anyone but Bush whatever year this is. You know, because that is a great way to pick a president. Who cares what he or she stands for and what platforms he or she supports, they are not Bush and that is all that matters. People who say anything that stupid should not be allowed to vote.

I'm going to disagree with you there, because bush is so hands down BAD in so many ways. He has lived down to EVERY low expectation I had for him, and his bogus, shoddy case for invading Iraq is just bonus.

And Hillary doesn't want to run against a Democratic incumbent 4 years from now.

You know, because that is a great way to pick a president.

Of course its not a good way to pick a president. But if one or both options (and there are only two that could concievably win... I know you think thats bad and all but thats just how it is) are shiat then we don't have a choice, do we?

This really is bad news for the Democrats. It seems to me to nearly insure President Bush's reelection. I happen to be believe that President Bush is likely to beat Kerry rather easily in any event. Those of you who are capable of reasonably objective and detached analysis will understand why that is the case. Those of you who are emotionally and viscerally invested in the "Bush is evil/a liar/an idiot... pathos will never understand. You will be just like the Republicans who could never conceive of how President Clinton could possibly be reelected.

Kerry will ultimately be revealed to be a weak general election candidate. The Democrat who would have given President Bush fits in a general election never made it out of Iowa. Nader's bleeding additional votes from Kerry will only make the margin larger.

I wouldn't be voting for Nader if the Democrats weren't acting like Republicans.

""It could be a win-win. Ralph gets his message out, he makes the Democrat look like the moderate, he beats up on Bush, and he's strategic about where he campaigns by staying away from the swing states."

--Medea Benjamin

i'm not saying that i necessarily agree with this viewpoint, but there is always another way to think about a subject. who knows, nader could actually be helping the democrats.

In 96 Clinton was so favored there was no 3rd candidate, and he won easily.

Incorrect. Ross Perot ran in 1996, I know because I voted for him (I was only 18 years old, OK?)

Use of Shrub or Shrubya or any of the other mind-numbing variations people have been coming up with is completely moronic. It's not even remotely funny and it lacks any sort of bite. It must just be me, right?

First off, if the Dems can't run a guy that can beat all comers, no matter how crowded the field is, then that's their bad luck.

Second, Nader is entering very, very late. He has little chance of getting on anywhere close to 50 ballots, not to mention the "Anyone But Bush" campaign is so strong, many people who would otherwise vote for Nader will be selling out and voting Dem this year.

/did Anderson cost Carter the election?

Those of you who are capable of reasonably objective and detached analysis will understand why that is the case. Those of you who are emotionally and viscerally invested in the "Bush is evil/a liar/an idiot... pathos will never understand.

I certainly understand why the polluters and the oilmen and the rabid jingoists will vote bush.

Its all about the ego isn't it Ralphie?

YaboNatto: I am partial to that unelected liar myself.

Republican Farker Reading the News:

The Democrats had 8 years under Clinton to enact the progressive reforms they have promised time and time again. Bill Clinton used his 8 years to raise money for his legal defense; to sell out gays (don't ask don't tell); welfare recipients, and African-Americans by signing into law much of the Republican "Contract on America," and handgun reform advocates by never standing up to the NRA. He also failed to deliver on Kyoto, and made a mockery of the Democrats' traditional support of womens' issues by blaming his indiscretions on 'a stalker,' namely "That woman... Miss Lewinsky."

The Democrats are, by and large, just another corporate-military dominated party who would do anything to take and keep power. OK, so Nader doesn't stand a chance of winning. At least after I vote for him (again) I won't have another sellout fraud whore like Bill Clinton on my conscience.

Welcome to America! Here's how the voting works:

60% Of the population does NOT want president A, 40% does.
Half of 60% votes for president B.
Half of 60% votes for president C.
HARK! The president 60% of the population specifically didn't want was elected! Yippie for US democracy, another triumph!


(kill the electoral college, have a runoff if no one gets over 50% of the popular votes.)

Sad.