I'm just not sure what makes me prouder this report "U.S. incarcerates more than any other nation" or RN meandering around yet another presidentail campaign.

Just because the most popular thing to do right now is going to be to dog-pile on Nader/Gonzalez (Nader lost the 2000 election for Gore, then had the gall to run again in 2004, and now again in 2008! He must suck!), I'm going to post an opposing view.

I heard Nader/Gonzalez interviewed on the radio this morning, and not only did they commandingly address those concerns, but they clearly laid out why they're running this year.

They want to bring up topics that they believe might otherwise be overlooked or outright ignored at this stage in the election cycle, what with John Edwards (who Nader had previously endorsed) out of the race. Like... single-payer national health care, which supposedly more than half of all Americans support, but is not being proposed by any major candidate. Like withdrawing all of our troops from Iraq soon, not just all but 60,000 (hey, wait, that's only like 50%) by some vague date in the future. Like absolutely stating that this country is done with nuclear power, and will not make any mistakes by building any new plants using that technology. Like doing something to reduce corporate power in Washington.

Are these all issues that matter and deserve to be discussed in the campaign?

I think so.

Are they more likely to be discussed, now that Nader and Gonzalez are running?

Maybe -- if they're allowed to participate in the debates once the primaries are over. Maybe, even if they're successfully excluded from all the debates -- depends on how savvy they are.

Regardless, it's a free country, we have freedom of speech, and they're free to run for any political office they like. I think they bring a valuable perspective to this race, and I welcome them to it.

And since we've all learned our lessons from 2000, I really don't think anybody is going to vote for them, so there's not really a snowball's chance in hell of them "spoiling" the election by drawing away votes from the Dem in November, anyways.

Right?

The radio show "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" just had a joke about Nader--"in his heart he knows you are wrong".

This is the problem with certain politicians like Nader. They may say intelligent things about many issues, they may have excellent voting records. But if they annoy/insult ordinary voters, those voters are not required to vote for them or say anything nicer than "yes, I agree with what he said on....but would never vote for someone that rude!".

Believe it or not, voters are allowed to vote for the person they LIKE, and Nader hasn't been that sort of person for many years.

LT-

I'm not sure that's a direct quote from Nader -- I think that's more emblematic of how he is viewed by the press. Nevertheless, it is also how he is viewed by the general public. I'm not arguing that he's going to win any votes -- indeed, I think there is a very good chance that he's not going to win many at all. However, if he is able to participate and raise topics of discussion that might otherwise be overlooked (along with Gonzalez, who is a very intelligent speaker and well-versed on the issues), he will have something of value to contribute to this race.

<h2>I am tired of this Ralph Nader bashing. I live in North Carolina, far from San Francisco, yet I know who Matt Gonzalez is and I'm a democrat. Not everybody has their head in the ground some of us follow the news, I recall his amazing near victory in the race for Mayor, the Dems had to call on Rev.Jackson,Al Gore, Sen. Clinton and others to bail out Gavin Newsome. I like Nader more and more all the time and just may vote for him this fall, after hearing Obama call for a "bump up" in defense spending I almost lost my lunch. If you support a single payer health care system,gay marriage,a cut in military spending, the repeal of NAFTA and the "Patriot" Act, then Nader just may be the best choice.</h2>