I don't know of anyone who has suggested that Nader doesn't have the right to run. But I think it's fair to point out that if he really cared about the policy positions he advocates, he would choose not to run and to throw his support behind the Democratic nominee. His past candidacies helped George W. Bush win elections, to the detriment of the nation and the planet.

Nader should exercise every right he has. But he can't fault those of us who condemn him for the damage he's done to his own legacy and to our country. He has placed his own ego over the good of our nation, and those who point that out are not hypocrites.

Nader announced his candidacy so late, and another Nader campaign is such old news, that the media have barely reported it. I seriously doubt he will get enough votes this time to make any difference in the election.

Any damage to Obama will be offset by Barr's run.

Maybe, maybe not. There will be only a few swing states where it might matter.

At the end of the day, Republicans and Democrats do not have a monopoly on democracy. It is the responsibility of Obama and McCain to convince voters to select them, it is not the responsibility of Nader and Barr.

Freedom means more choices, not less.

Of course Nader has the right to run, no matter how pointless it is. An attention whore has to do something to get attention, right?

In fact, especially if Barr gets an edorsement from Paul, Barr's candidacy should more than offset Nader's. Obama has strong support and is well-liked among those groups who would otherwise support Nader. I don't see the college hipsters and Western eco-voters abandoning Obama this year. Barr, however, could swing evangelical voters and Western libertarian Republicans away from McCain this year -- damaging him in critical southern and western states.

Beathan

If Ralph Nader were ever to admit to himself that he swung the 2000 election to George W. Bush, his head would explode. Nader is now condemned to run every four years to validate his consoling delusion that every run he makes, especially the 2000 run, serves a higher purpose that transcends mundane politics.

Too right. It is sad to see an Icon fall so far. He should change his last name to Nadir.

Beathan

tjcerveza:

Maybe, maybe not. There will be only a few swing states where it might matter.

At the end of the day, Republicans and Democrats do not have a monopoly on democracy. It is the responsibility of Obama and McCain to convince voters to select them, it is not the responsibility of Nader and Barr.

Freedom means more choices, not less.

I have to agree. You can't advocate restricting ballot access just because you didn't like the outcome of a particular election.

Did Ralph lose Florida for Gore? Or did Pat Buchanan's solid turnout in the Jewish community turn the tide?

Or is it possible that Al just didn't quite run the campaign that he should have?

Beathan:

In fact, especially if Barr gets an edorsement from Paul, Barr's candidacy should more than offset Nader's. Obama has strong support and is well-liked among those groups who would otherwise support Nader. I don't see the college hipsters and Western eco-voters abandoning Obama this year. Barr, however, could swing evangelical voters and Western libertarian Republicans away from McCain this year -- damaging him in critical southern and western states.

Beathan

This is the key that could re-arrange the electoral map in 2008. I would be surprised if Ron Paul actually ran as VP, but if he strongly endorsed Bob Barr's campaign he could pick up a significant voting block. Barr is seen in the South as more of a true movement conservative than is McCain.

Ron Paul has a very loyal following in the South and in the Western States. He hasn't gotten good press, but he has had a lot of visible grass-roots activity going on.

Nader won 90,000 votes in Florida in 2000. Bush won the state by 587 votes. Nader, alone, has the blood of 4,000 brave Americans on his hands, the depletion of our treasure and the contempt of the free world. He's so self absorbed and self aggrandizing, however, he doesn't get it.

Therefore is is up to us to not vote for Nader in 2008. We often get what we ask for before we realize that we should have been asking for something else altogether.

Life's rich pageantry is filled with cruel lessons and tragedies.

SandyB;

You wrote that "any damage to Obama will be offset by Barr."

I think that Barr will get more votes than Nader this year because of the Republicans' dissatisfaction with McCain.

However, there is one scenario in which Barr could actually swing a state. The following needs to happen:

1. Obama selects Sam Nunn for his running mate: one of the most popular, bi-partisan figures in Georgia's history.
2. Obama targets Georgia and puts all his efforts into doubling black registration and voting in November.

If these two things occur, Barr could swing Georgia. The state has gotten as close 10-16 points in the past. Barr, although unknown nationally is well known and popular in Georgia.

Dah-dah! An African-American liberal wins a deep south state forty-three years after passage of the Voting Rights Act.

Works for me!

he can run, but he can't hide.