WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2008
Is Nader Planning Another Run?
Two-Time Presidential Candidate To Appear On Meet The Press To Discuss Possible White House Bid
-
Photo
Ralph Nader speaks at a news conference in Reading, Pa. in this July 14, 2007 file photo. (AP)
-
Interactive
Campaign 2008
Profiles of the candidates, polls, fund-raising, blogs, video and more.
-
In-Depth
2008 Presidential Hopefuls
Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
The consumer advocate will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Nader launched his 2004 presidential run on the show.
A spokesman for Nader did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race, but is no longer working for him, said Friday that Nader has been actively talking to "lots of people on all sorts of levels" about the possibility of making another run.
Zeese said he could only guess what Nader might do, but added: "Obviously, I don't think ("Meet the Press" host) Tim Russert would have him on for no reason."
Last month, Nader began an exploratory presidential campaign and launched a Web site that promises to fight "corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control."
Nader's appearance on "Meet the Press" was announced Friday in an e-mail message from Nader's exploratory campaign. The message from "The Nader Team" urges supporters to tell friends and family to watch the show and requests online contributions.
"As you know, we've been exploring the possibilities in recent weeks," the message says.
Nader is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost Democrats the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida. Nader has vociferously disputed the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush.
Though he won 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate in 2000, Nader won just 0.3 percent as an independent in 2004, when he appeared on the ballot in only 34 states.
Nader was forced to fight dozens of court battles over ballot access in 2004, as Democrats pressed legal challenges over whether he gained enough legitimate signatures to get his name on the ballot.
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Stacie Paxton declined to discuss how the party would respond to another Nader candidacy.
"The Democratic Party represents the change the American people are looking for and I'm confident we'll put a Democrat back in the White House in November," Paxton said.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
Hi-Tech Drones Aid Terror Hunt
-
Video
Confirming Sotomayor
-
Video
Obama, Pope Convene At Vatican
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 108 CommentsUhhh, Ralphie, I realize that your friends, and others close to you, do not have the courage to tell you this; but someone must let you know about it.
Ralphie - your chances of being elected president of the U.S., or being elected to anything for that matter, are the exact same as you becoming the next Pope or Czar of Russia.
If you seriously believe that you should become a candidate for anything, you should instead seek the services of a competent mental health care provider, preferably someone with Ph.D. or M.D. after their name.
It is my understanding that they will have good quality medications for you too!
Why seek mental health help? You could be suffering with severe impaired reasoning, coupled with a very unusual need for near constant publicity. Maybe you are suffering with Presinoia. That is a delusional state where a select few people actually convince themselves they have a chance of being elected president.
It is of special concern when there is long-term Presinoia.
Posted by hopetrumps
The United Church of Christ did that! Is it any wonder I''m not a liberal Christian?
There are few public figures who are as repugnant as Mr. Nader. It is amazing how people can embrace such a person who believes their fecal matter has no odor.
As Ralph Nader ages, I can understand expanded feelings of worthlessness - perhaps loneliness. Some will support him - the throwbacks to the 60s, no doubt. As a child of the 60s myself, I never saw the value in a person whose self-righteousness was so heavily promoted.
I guess we''ll have to get it over with, let Mr. Nader bask in the public eye once again, and move on. I have long felt sorry for this pitiful soul.
---
Nader made it clear from the beginning his campaigns in 2000 and 2004 were to keep the major players honest. Corporate domination of American politics is now so embarrassingly blatant, none of the entrenched, former Terry McAuliffe DNC tribe bothers to deny it any longer.
The only hope and prospect for reform among the Democrats is DNC chair Howard Dean, who must deal with the Lieberman wing of the Democrats on a daily basis.
With Clinton raking in the corporate dollars and loudly defending her practice publicly, she has little credible reform to offer. And with the customary corporate tribute to any GOP nominee (presumed McCain), it will be another decade before "mainstream politics" offers American voters an authentic voice of their own.
Obama is the single exception to this campaign-- if he is truly as independent of corporate and lobby influence as he says he is, or even half as independent of Washington lobbies as Edwards claimed he was, there is hope.
But with or without Obama, a Nader in the national dialogue might force McCain and Clinton to confront their own compromises and ethical lapses on democratic principle.
Youre a racist searching for justications not to vote for the black man, plain and simple. Why dont you just admit that you cant stand the idea of black president, instead of presenting idiotic points of view....
G.R.E.E.N.
We remember that very well and haven''t forgiven him for it.
Let him run, but by the looks of him, he has had health issues and will drop in the traces.
So watch who he picks as VP because that is who would end up running the country.
Youre a racist searching for justications not to vote for the black man, plain and simple. Why dont you just admit that you cant stand the idea of black president, instead of presenting idiotic points of view.... "
I hope that you are not saying that I *have* to vote for Mr. Obama just to prove that I am not a racist?
Posted by ecs1749 at 07:08 PM : Feb 22, 2008
I read your post and you didn''t come across that way.
Obama seems okay but his wife shows far too much that these two are not ready for the White House, they both are not seasoned enough.
I wonder if Obama realizes his wife could make or loose his nomination with her words, at just the time he thinks he has it in the bag. If she doesn''t want the presidency as much as he does, she could sink him.
It sounds like she may know how hard being POTUS is, and is un/consciously undermining the campaign out of her own insecurities and fears. Why else would she talk like that?
If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE?
1. If the Democratic party is committed to the democratic process its party label implies, how can superdelegates have any influence on the outcome of the primaries?
2. If superdelegates are NOT chosen at random, how can the body of superdelegates be distributed fairly and equitably between Obama and Clinton to reflect the outcome of the primaries?
3. And even if distributed between Obama and Clinton by outcome of the primary, superdelegates are not bound to vote for either. If democratic selection of the party nominee is the objective, why have superdelegates, at all?
4. If the body of superdelegates was chosen long before the Obama-Clinton race began in earnest, and well before primary voters made clear their preference, how could the superdelegates be anything but an obstruction to democracy in the party?
The superdelegates now become party machine politics at its worst, reminding many of the way the Democratic Party handled the 1968 Chicago convention. That convention nominated Hubert Humphrey, LBJ''s VP, who had won fewer party primaries than his opponents (McCarthy and RFK).
Humphrey, in turn, lost the election to Richard Nixon, another GOP soldier with a long party record.
---
I hesitate to ask, but were you asleep when Bush stole into the Oval Office and did exactly what your laundry list of nightmares details?
You worry--
1. Would He CHANGE the way to make it easy for terrorists to get into this country to over throw this country?
2. Would He CHANGE the laws for any of His kind?
3. Would He hang out with those who supported tyranny against this country?
4. Would He impose martial law? (in de facto fashion, of course)
5. Could He start unjust wars for His hidden ideology?
6. Could His decisions CHANGE the course for America?
7. Would He CHANGE your civil liberties?
8. Would He CHANGE your mind that you voted for Him? (most have already, in utter disgust with Bush)
Exactly what were you thinking for the past seven years-- or not, as the case may be?
Again, it probably has little or nothing to do with the issues that face the country... but Obama is not running on the issues. Instead he is running on the idea that he can bring about change that can take us all above our divisions and silos and allow us to work together to bring change. I think most people would like to see a bit of this ability in his background before trusting that he can lead 300 million people of all ethnic, cultural, and social backgrounds. I don''t think it helps is cause that his church is not one that reaches out against division, but rather fosters a silo by being unashamedly homogoneous.
Obama--
Here is an article on Obama at Snopes.com, a website devoted to fact-checking and exposure of "urban legends"--
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Here is another Snopes.com article on the most common rumors about Obama--
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
McCain--
Here is a news article on John McCain at abcnews.com, detailing his "offenses" against the Bush GOP--
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/limbaugh-mccain.html
Yet, any fact check will show McCain is more conservative than Bush, according to the Heritage Foundation. Moreover, McCain votes as he views the issue, not as Bush does (does this make Bush more "liberal"?). See www.snopes.com for other McCain facts, not legends.
Clinton--
Here at Snopes.com is the best means to track down those pesky urban legends about Hillary--
(from a search with the term "Hillary"
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=hillary&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-p00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Surely Nader doesn''t want four more years of a Republican/pro-Big Business administration? How is that good for the consumer/the little man?
Take your pills....
Posted by EyeSupremacy at 07:31 PM : Feb 22, 2008
Yeah and don''t stop at just a few. 50 or 60 should do just fine.
That would be the ultimate. Algore, the Savior of the Planet, running for President with the Green Party.
Anyone want to join me in drafting Algore for that???
At least Nader will call it like it is.
All these whining Democrats who blame Nader for 2000 should grow a brain and and realize that Gore lost because he had no conviction. When Ross Perot ran in 1992, did you hear Republicans whine that Ross helped Clinton win? NO. Did Republicans cower and move to the center? NO. They honed their message, mobilized their base, and took control of congress in only 2 years.
Stop the Democratic Whinning
He''s a has been let him RIP.
You must be joking. Our present mess was brought about by Democrats who abandoned their principles and have been acting like Republicans for years. Thats the real reason fascist Bush was elected - there was no counter message in 2000 or in 2004. Just look at your pathetic, whining Democratic Congress, who allowed Bush to invade Iraq, and who took impeachment "off the table".
You brainwashed Democratic whiners make me sick.
The reason the Democrats took impeachment off the table is because they wouldn''t have the votes to actually impeach him, so seriously why bother? The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton and it only made them look smarmy. The Democrats came out looking dignified as a result of the decision they made.
Bush has already been convicted in the court of public opinion and I think that is the only justice we will ever have. He will go down as one of the worst presidents in American history and will live the rest of his life with that albatross on his shoulder. I seriously believe he will turn to the bottle in later life when he grasps the reality of his failed legacy. I suppose that will be the ultimate justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by PVperson
My sentiments, exactly! It would be better to see Nader spoil a rising soufle, rather than a perfectly good election.
Thats true and its a good reason for him to run. Think of it. If Nader hadn''t run in 2000, wouldn''t we all be fat, dumb, and happy by now under a Gore administration? Instead, by running he''s exposed the very real danger to America (and the world) posed by modern American Republicanism, which has given itself over to neoconism, with its romantic attachment to empire. I must admit, alot of us who couldn''t have given a rats *ss 8 years ago about whether Bush or Gore won the election CARE NOW. By running, Nader is unintentionally (or increasingly I think, intentionally) pulling the WHOLE country LEFTWARD.
Another 4 years of Republican control would be just the ''push'' needed to send many American''s into the streets seeking blood: which is where they should have been for some time now.
You can only be sold out for so long. What''s amazing about Republicans is how upfront they are about it: they WILL sell you out! Its part of their philosophy!
In order for this statement to be accurate then one has to look at the democratic party of almost 50 years ago with JFK. Neither party has represented Americans since.
He''s LOADED, a millionaire. He should run this time as a Republican.
Bush''s only friend left is Nader.
You are most probably correct, but I will continue to call for war crimes trials even after Bush leaves office. Too many have suffered and died, and continue to do so because of his lies, and the US economy is in imminent danger of collapse because of his penchant for corruption.
A precedent needs to be established so the next idiot looking to rip off the US with a phony "war" can look to Bush as an example of what happens to such people, like former times when a criminal''s head was put on a stake and left to rot at the city entrance.
It would be proper and fitting if Bush remained sober, but only because he couldn''t afford a bottle in prison, maybe just one last shot of Jack on his way to the firing squad.
for the record... i know a numerous republican (or conservative) leaning folks who have voted for and written in nader in the past. ive never met a democrat who has said they voted nader.
Michelle has an affliction we are not used to seeing in politics or for many of us--even in our own lives--she is brutally honest. This has led her to be indiscreet and to regard her honesty as a virtue instead of recognizing sometimes the expediency of the white lie. Like when she said she would have to think long and hard before supporting Hilary--the answer is probably the truth--but it also is naive. Not only can she put her husband''s nomination in jeopardy; even if elected, the propensity for a first lady to stick her foot in her mouth can be detrimental to our image internationally. I already wrote to Michelle and told her she needed to watch her mouth and hire a handler. Course, I doubt she even got my letter--but someone better warn her, that not only can she sink her husbands aspirations now--but that as long as they are together, Americans will not want to risk the liability of a first lady who does not know how to practice diplomacy. I will grant this woman a learning curve, because we have heard worse--but if she can''t shut it, she needs to go underground and be seen only--and not heard.
Posted by EyeSupremacy at 07:30 PM : Feb 22, 2008
Because the first lady also represents us as Americans. If she is uncouth--then so are we. If she is gracious, then so are we. If she is compassionate or helpful, then we are also perceived that way. Like it or not, the potential first lady carries the implied temperment and gentility of the nation. If she fails at dinner parties, repartee, diplomacy etc--it is an indictment of all of us--so if Michelle is to be considered a potential first lady--she better be given a handler to not only teach her the etiquette in presenting herself to the nation--but also the discretion required in representing the nation--and this facade is required at all times--if she can''t pull it off--she can''t be first lady--we are not going to diminish the Presidency any more for mediocre personalities. And I am an Obama supporter, that was not only dismayed by Michelle, but felt she need a good slap for being so impolitic at this point.
---
You bridle about Michelle Obama''s candid remarks, but have said little or nothing about the orchestrated saccharine verbal deceits from the Clinton camp.
After remarks about Obama, they apologized, but only after getting the desired media attention. Next, they resurfaced, for good measure, with a charge of plagiarism.
It seems you might find the greater wrong in calculated injury-- yes, even at the expense of truth-- than violation of any supposed decorum from press flaks, managers and "handlers"-- of which most American voters are more than distrustful and resentful.
For somebody who claims to support Obama, you seem to miss the point of his candidacy entirely. When the mass of voters finds few leaders willing to listen, and more than willing to deliver speeches from their handlers, we can presume the rare candid remarks will be at least interesting. Call it "reality politics"-- America hungers for it.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 108 Comments