Some people are just perpetual candidates. They’re useless attention whores. Alan Keyes jumps to mind.
Ralph Nader is flirting with another tilt at the windmill.
Go away you useless oxygen thief! Nader on Obama:
He expressed particular disappointment with Obama, whose senate record he called "mediocre, and quite cautious
Ralph, your record is mediocre and quite obnoxious.
Hunter S. Thompson
If Democrats have a problem with Nader running then perhaps they need to address those concerns that people who vote for Nader have. Then they’ll vote for Democratic cadidates instead of Nader. He’s not a douche for running.
Marc
Ralph Nader doesn’t need to run for anything to be a douche.
Is there a reason that this seems to be the only elected seat he is seeking? Or that he doesn’t think that the campaign money he’d be raising could be better used in supporting REAL causes and not another failed attempt at running?
I’m just not looking forward to listening to him whine about not being included in the debates and he isn’t getting “respect.”
Hmm, who’s worse: Kucinich or Nader?
A freshman senator positioning himself for a White House bid could not reasonably be expected to have anything other than a cautious, mediocre record.
Hey, Barack, here’s an idea: Nip this in the bud. Offer Ralph Nader the position of Attorney General. He could do more good there anyway. (And the corporate CEOs would shit! 
)
Kucinich (just last week) had the good grace to accept the inevitable and bow out.
I don’t have a problem with Kucinich running.
As much as we talk about the importance of third and fourth parties, nationally, we’ve been a two party game for quite some time. I can forgive young folks for voting for third party candidates, but experienced voters have to know that it’s a wasted vote.
Granted, Anderson, Perot I, and Nader I spoke to a sizable number of people in this country. Ultimately, those who voted for those candidates ended up hurting the candidates that would have been the best compromise for their views.
I really think it’s a matter of finding the candidate in the two dominant parties that most closely fits your priorities, and trying to bend them to your way of thinking, rather than finding the obscure candidate that fits your agenda to a “T.” Still, the idea is as American as apple pie, and it wouldn’t be election cycle if ol’ Ralph didn’t threaten to run. One has to wonder how he reconciles being so unsuccessful each time, and further estranging himself from most of goodwill and positive work he accomplished in the 1960s.
Nader/Paul '08?
I agree. I’d hate to think this country did anything, even in the private sector, to discourage someone from running for political office.
If you’re proposing locking them in a closet and letting them fight to the death, it might be entertaining, but as a presidential ticket? Do they agree about anything?
They both look like emaciated, sunken-eyed ghouls. Does that count as agreement? Perhaps they agree on the merits of a 1000 calorie per day diet?
I predict that nothing he does will have a significant effect on the presidential election. First, the election won’t be as close as the last two. Second, people who voted for him in the past either as a protest or because they legitimately supported his ideals have had a chance to observe the dire consequences. Therefore, the only people harmed by his running would be those who willingly devote time and effort to his cause.
But my election predictions have really sucked for the past eight years or so.
Ralph is again “not impressed” with either candidate and is going to jump in at the last minute and steal the election! I’d like to meet the guy whose going to get out of bed, get dressed, use gas, and stand in a line to vote for him this time. :rolleyes:
Steal implies something belongs to someone. It really pisses me off when someone implies that my vote belongs only to a Republican or a Democrat.
Now I hope he does run. Go, Ralph, go!
And the better grace to have a photogenic young wife with an accent.
If Clinton is nominated, I’d have to seriously consider it.
Just kidding! I’d probably vote Socialist.
Not always, and not what I meant here:
Steal-
b: to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>
or
3 a: to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election>
None of which applies to Nader. He will neither “accomplish”, “seize”, “gain” or “win” the election.
Yeh, she would’ve made a heckuva First Lady. sigh 