Here are my basic problems with Nader and his supporters.

First of all, if he really wants to make a difference and be part of the political process, why doesn't he run for an office he can win? I bet you even as late as 2004 Oregon or Vermont would have sent him to the Senate, and many communities would send him to the House. His running this perennial hopeless campaign makes me question his real committment to social change and his motives in participating in the political process.

Secondly, his vendetta against the Democrats is immature and misplaced. Sure, the Clinton people should have returned his calls in 1992. But come on -- aren't there bigger issues at stake by now? During his years as a consumer advocate -- which no one can take away from him and for which he deserves the highest respect -- it was the Congessional Democrats that gave him a platform and credibility in Washington and helped turn his work into laws and regulations.

And finally, let's talk about the whole third-party concept. The problem with the phrase one hears someone groan every four years -- "the lesser of two evils" -- is that it implies that there was some halcyon time when democracy wasn't a choice between two corporate-backed weasels. The founding fathers understood this very well. They knew that the ballot box wasn't enough to ensure full participation, so they passed the Bill of Rights and its immortal First Amendment, guaranteeing the right to freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, petition for redress of grievances, etc. And, unlike voting, those rights were given to all citizens from the start, so it could be argued that they were considered more essential to democracy than voting. Historically, voting has always been more of a negative act than a positive one -- something Putin understands very well. The major reason to vote is to vote against tyranny (usually disguised as an ultra-nationalist friendly to business interests and the ethnic majority). The alternative is usually some less-than ideal guy who has his own issues, but at least he respects the democratic process, which, by the way, is supposed to be messy (tune into a session of British Parliament to see how it's supposed to work -- it ain't pretty.) The idea is to vote for a competent administrator who respects the Constitution and can negotiate its checks and balances to get things done in a way that offends the fewest people, not an ideologically pure knight on a shining horse. Voting for Nader is just as bad as voting for Buchanan -- or Bush. We don't need third parties, we need for the American people to take the system we have seriously and fully participate in it, and understand that it's our duty not to elect an ideal candidate, but to elect the least bad one and use our freedoms to lobby him/her on the issues important to you. It should have nothing to do with force of personality. TIme to grow up, people.

I agree with most of what you wrote, particularly with the thesis that freedom of speech, etc may be seen to be superior to voting alone. However these very rights are in danger of becoming a theory when the two major parties listen less and less to the people. The door for citizen participation is reduced to symbolic acts when two parties put corporate voices before people.

The role of Nader or any third party running is not so much about winning here, but at the very least, it should remind us of our intrinsic unwillingness to settle with a second best. I fear that if we become too habituated and comfortable with picking the lesser evil on the mere grounds of being practical, we may overlook what is possible.

Nader makes a bad president and I echo your predilection for a more administratively capable candidate. The exclusion of Nader however, would excuse the absence of issues that the other leading candidates have comfortably ignored.

The problem with the phrase one hears someone groan every four years -- "the lesser of two evils" -- is that it implies that there was some halcyon time when democracy wasn't a choice between two corporate-backed weasels. The founding fathers understood this very well.

Actually, the founding fathers never anticipated the rise of partisan politics. They never intended to limit us to only 2 candidates for president. That's why the Constitution allows for people like Ralph Nader to run.

Also, the founding fathers never anticipated the rise of massive international corporations. The closest entity to a modern corporation at the time was the Catholic church, and we all know how the founding fathers felt about separation of church and state. I highly doubt that the founding fathers would approve of the "corporate-backed weasels" that pass for elected officials these days.

Well, frankly, if the Dems do what Billary wants, steal the nomination from Barack Obama, then there is certainly going to be a split in the Dems, and its likely a lot of people will go to Nader, so he is smart, tactically, anyway.

They will not go to the Cons, that is for sure.

So the last great gift of Billary will be to split the Democratic party?

In hindsight, I do wonder.

I've been arguing what you succinctly and more artfully stated in your first paragraph. There are many ways to get on the map if your concern is agenda setting. I think it's utterly futile in this day and age (and perhaps it always was) for a third-party candidate, especially one hostile to the other parties, to seek the presidency. Nader would have a largely impossible time building a consensus on much of anything, and would most likly have to settle for watered down policies which were mere shadows of his own progressive proposals. In that sense, Nader does stand in the way of democrats winning. He is obviously siphoning off more democrats than republicans - the magnitude is irrelevant as long as he takes away more than one vote for democrats with every vote he takes from republicans.

But I digress. My bottom line is that Nader is best suited for being a congressman in a democrat-controlled House or Senate, where his ideas will get full consideration. Otherwise, he will continue to be, for lack of a better term, a political cockblock.