So why is the press covering him?

{sigh}

Indeed, Mr. Hundt. Why, Indeed?

For that matter, why are you?

"But the media should ignore him consistently and firmly."

While I entirely agree, I wonder why you are paying him attention.

By the way... what is the deal with Reed Hundt? He's one of the oldest and most prolific political celeb contributors around here but I've never once seen him wade into the comments or engage with us in any way. The Reed Hundt lecture, stimulating as it is (and I'm not being sarcastic, I do think he's smart) needs to end and Reed needs to start talking with us instead of at us.

Hello, yes it is good to cover him, but is the media going to report our son, John Wieder for Congress TX-22. So far they told us that he is un opposed in the primary. However there are other candidates you are reporting that do not have an opponent in the primary either???? So report on all 14 candidates for TX-22, including Wieder.
Have you done a search on johnwieder lately?
We want Hillary to win the Democratic Primary.
Thank you and may God Bless all of us, US too.
wieder

Touche´

I am grateful for what Ralph Nader has done for this country. I was riding in a taxi last June and was badly injured by the seat belt I was wearing. But thanks to Ralph Nader that seat belt was there for me to wear. Without it I would not be typing this post. So I will give Ralph Nader his due.

That said, I believe if Obama wins the nomination, it will not be close enough for Nader to have any effect at all. He will simply be irrelevant this campaign.

I voted for Nader in the 2000 election, at the time I didn't pay much attention to politics. Clearly in retrospect there was a huge difference, but Gore didn't make much an effort to give me a reason to vote for him. It would be unthinkable today for a democrat not to run on Universal Healthcare, but there was no universal healthcare plan. It would be unthinkable today for a democrat not to run on Global Warming, yet gore didn't run on that, despite the fact he cares deeply about it.

There was no way to know what bush was actually planning to do unless you were super-plugged in. There was tons of dirt on Cheney, but we never heard any of it. There was also the issue of VP Joe Lieberman...

Anyway, this is a democracy, if Nader wants to run it's his choice. And Obama can campaign against him if he wants (But I think it would greatly raise his profile, and the media would certainly want to run his response if he was attacked). I think it makes more sense to ignore him. I don't think Nader came close too effecting the 2004 election. He didn't get $100k votes in Ohio, for example.

a Nader campaign is EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

How about Obama practicing his strategy for foreign leaders in opposition to the US out on Ralph? Doesn't he say he'll open dialogue, to show that our country (quoting from BO's site) "is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead"?

Do this for the Democratic party, Barak!

Make a show of talking to Nader. He won't likely compromise enough to back off or even admit that a current party nominee is even on the right track, but one argument that gets me looking at Nader sympathetically is that he has been treated like a leper since he started his running in 96. Here was a guy who seems prophetic in retrospect on issues of campaign finance, corporate abuse, foreign policy and trade, that was totally blocked out. I remember how Clinton and other party hacks happily sidelined him as best they could, and that was only the beginning. Look at this article above! No wonder Ralph's so confrontational and unyielding.

He would be a great asset to the party if he could be brought into the fold--say in the EPA? What a great test of BO's powers of persuasion to say to Nader and his followers, "You matter. How can we make you part of the process?"

If we knew our history, the man should be revered by the Dems given all that he has done for public policy, even if he is pain in their side. Why hasn't anyone reached out? Instead, our leaders shake our fists and jump up and down and call him and anyone who follows him names like "Spoiler!" and "Egomaniac!", and we're supposed to follow suit.

Sounds like Bush's policy on Iran.

If we need a new strategy in the world, let's start in our party. Not saying it would work but it would be a positive way to address that potential margin of 500 votes in Florida that could "decide" the election.

I hope Obama wins the nomination and the Presidency. It will be very good for the country, and McCain would be an utter disaster. But I am concerned about some of Obama's positions -- his position on universal health care still reflects Republican thinking: e.g. private insurance companies should be involved.

Why? What do private insurance companies actually do besides profit from people's illness? It makes no sense to me.

The Democrats continue to allow the Republicans to call the tune. Last spring, Obama was a co-sponsor of a bill that would have given the coal companies large subsidies for coal liquifaction. Given the threat of global warming, this is an idiotic position. I am not sure what happened to that bill; it seems to have disappeared. But I am bothered by Obama's co-sponsosrhip. Finally, in an attempt to show that he is tough on defense, he said he would attack terrorists in Pakistan without Pakistani cooperation if necessary. I am fed up with this mindless militaristic crap; the militaristic policies of the U.S. are self-defeating. We need to make big cuts in our military spending, and invest the money in infrastructure, education, health care, at home.

True, Obama has to win an election, and it is going to be tough. But I am not altogether happy with some of his positions. And I am not happy with the way the Democratic party has handled itself in Congress since the 2006 elections. They have caved into Republican demands almost every time.

The Democrats have shown themselves to be spineless; and Nader is right that the Democrats are complicit in the atrocities that have been committed-- they are complicit in the war crimes of the Bush Administration; they are complicit in the unconstitutonal spying. Moreover, rather than admit their own failings in the election of 2000, the Democrats have sought to make Nader a scapegoat.

Gore won the election in 2000 (I voted for him); but he lacked the courage and tenacity to challenge the situation in Florida. He lost Tennesee. He ran a lackluster campaign. The Republicans stole the election in 2000, with the help of the Supreme Court, and the Democrats have never challenged that. Instead they blame Nader.

How do I send a message to the Democrats that their performance is unacceptable?

I will wait to see how the election campaign develops. I hope Obama wins, but without my vote; I will be looking at the Green Party to see what they have to say. The Republicans are self-destructing, and that will be good for the country. Once they do, I hope the Spineless Democrats are run out of the party: Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi -- the whole bunch of them. This will not happen overnight, I know, but there have to be consequences to the Democrats' miserable, spineless, performance.

Both parties are enabling each other, and both need a thorough enema. There are some good people in the Democratic party, (none in the Republican party), but there are a lot of bad ones in there too, and the country will not make progress until all bad politicians are thrown out of office, both Republican and Democratic.

Don't kid yourselves...Ralph Nader is a better candidate for president than BO, HC, and JE combined...

What if Ralph were on the democratic ticket?? Ralph is the embodiment of a truly leftist democratic party...

Why do we deny this?

I had an old Labonza once, but it got crappy mileage and I traded it in.

Running for president in this country is everybody's business.

This is a tad slanted, everyone just needs to calm down a little. I think he made a good case for himself this morning and it will be a strong showing for our country and even more particularly the Democratic party, if Obama wins this with a third party candidate in the race. Which I believe he can do.

This is a reply to The Other Bear, who is absolutely right on target, excellent rating.

I can expand on this greatly, and have, in a post today on a Nader thread over at The Washington Note, under my other screen name, Pacific Coast Ron.

I won't copy it all here, but just tease you with this part of it: it's crazy to put a lot of effort in a 3rd party when Repub. ultra-fascists are tearing up the Constitution.

But left 3rd party organizing thrives when centrist Dems are in power; to the extent that Obama can't fulfill his promises (for whatever reason) organizing for a left 3rd party effort in 2012 will be, relatively, a breeze.

The serious people will want to start now on that left effort for 2012. Please see the above-mentioned message at TWN for more.

Will Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson endorse Nader?

Hundt says Nader's egotistical? Give me break! Anyone running for president is by definition an ego-maniac. Am I to believe that HRC and Obama are humble. Man, these people are insulting. ANyone who blames Nader for the loss in 2000 is just another ostrich. Did anyone reach out to Nader back then? NO, they in fact pulled some illegal shit to sideline him; ie, when he showed up in Boston with tickets in hand for Gore's little meeting, they denied him entrance. What morons. If anyone thinks our problems will be solved with the Obama election--and I'm voting for him (do I have a choice)--I have a bridge for sale and no more hair to pull out of my head in frustration.

Nader offers an opportunity for people who think the American system is a bad joke to express themselves.

Yes, ignoring Ralph Nader is a strategy that has worked time and again. Worked wonders for the auto industry.

Ralph Nader may be hated by the Democrats, but he has proven his moral authority on issues which effect average Americans.

If Hillary Clinton had talked Ralph Nader's talk, she would be breezing to the nomination right now.
So, for most Dems, it isn't the message they disagree with, but the person who delivers it. Ignore him, or his thoughts, at the parties peril.

Fess up.

How many of ya'll are Hillary-supporters-for-Nader in disguise?

It's interesting how hysterical the attacks on Nader are. Obviously the fear is that his message is attractive to a great many potential Democratic voters.... So why not adopt his message?

The problem is that while the Republican Party is horrible, it is real. The GOP is the genuine right, what you see is what you get, the Democratic Party however, is pseudo progressive... a fake.

Nader is in the role of a "witness".

It is obvious from this post and the commentaries that hang from it that Ralph Nader is the Democrat's bad conscious.

I think everyone who wants anything progressive to ever happen should support Nader with the wild enthusiasm heretofore reserved for Obama... at least in till the last week of October.

There's a maxim in computer security that I think is very instructive: there is no security from obscurity. Not thinking of Ralph Nader is impossible and counterproductive; he won't go away. Ignoring someone who might drain off 2% of the vote that belongs to you is not possible. You have to first make the case that YOU are the change candidate, and treat what he says as a suggestion. Take the good ones. Show that you react to the good criticisms, but refuse on the kookier ones. And above all, make sure that people know that the point is to put you in office, not your opponent.
And then there are some people who will just run around like mechanical dolls banging their heads against the wall, and for them, a Nader candidacy is like going off meds. It's like protesting.

Wow! I haven't heard anyone say, hit him right in "the labonza" in years--my Dad always said it. Thanks for the cultural flashback!

Though I was as disappointed as anyone that Gore lost to Bush, blaming Ralph Nader, and claiming that he actually wanted Bush to win, is the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time. It really pisses me off when so-called liberals (I count myself in that category, minus the "so-called" tag) that are supposed to support voter rights and claim to want change feel it necessary to marginalize a true leftest voice in America because it doesn't fit nicely within the horrible two party system that's taken a stranglehold on our democracy. We need to break out of this two party game where politicians sit around doing nothing, playing the same political games, all the while knowing that if they lose out this year, they only have to wait for the winds to change before they'll be right back in office a few years later to do nothing yet again.

Is Ralph Nader out to really win the presidency? Of course not. But America's political history is full of third party candidates that raise issues that are often ignored by the two major parties that would rather have people vote based on whether candidates wear lapel pins. Nader was right in his interview on Sunday that issues like women's right to vote, the environment, and countless of other "crazy" ideas that were ignored by the two major parties for years were only adopted into mainstream politics after successful third-party runs. In the 19 debates that Obama keeps mentioning, have the candidates discussed Israel? Have they discussed the fact that our current alternative fuels are actually worse for global warming than traditional hydrocarbon-based fuels? Have they discussed the future of patents for large corporations over our food supply? No.
Nader's reason for running is to talk about these types of issues, which are vitally important, because no one else in the race is willing to do so.

So, although it would be terrible for John McCain to win the presidency over Obama or Hillary, I personally welcome Mr. Nader to the conversation Maybe one day the so-called liberals in the Democratic party will get the courage to actually support real liberal policies instead of sitting in the center, ignoring the difficult issues that they don't have scripted sound-byte answers for, and pointing fingers at independent "spoilers", all the while never actually changing anything (other than the laws that support free elections for anyone independent enough to want to run for office outside the two party system).

So the reason not to vote for Nader (and to rail against his running) is to complain that he helps the Republicans win? Why not provide instead reasons to vote for the Democrat instead of complaining that Nader is running. Consider the 2004 election with Kerry as the Democratic candidate. Kerry's position was that the Iraq war, unfortunate as it might be, needed to be won now that we were there. So, said Kerry, we ought to be fighting it to win, and thus we needed to add more troops. Thus, Kerry did his best not to provide any reason for me to vote for him. Was I the only person who went into the voting booth after this with a terrible struggle about whether I could vote for him or might have to vote for Nader? If Obama wants my vote, he and his supporters need to provide positive reasons for me to vote for Obama, not merely the specter of a Republican win, but a positive reason to for for Obama. Otherwise, why shouldn't I vote for Nader. Nader is better on the issues, so why shouldn't I vote for him? Just wondering. But please, don't respond to Nader's candidacy by saying that he's a spoiler who is helping the Republicans. Provide positive reasons for me to vote for the Democrat rather than for Nader.

out of the loop
¡Olé!

Of course the Reed Hundt's of our government do not believe that Nader deserve's one vote. After all, Nader has always been dedicated to the protection of the little guy. The insiders in Washington believe government is there to enrich them with power and gold. They get this from the corporations they serve, not the common man.

So, to them, Nader is a heretic, and must be burned.

Think about it. Reed Hundt says the guy who fought for seat belts and airbags does not deserve one vote. The guy who says that the war in Iraq was a crime, and Bush was the worst criminal president in our history, not deserving of a vote. The guy who calls the Democratic leadership on their cowardice toward enforcing the rule of law, not deserving one vote. The guy who calls out Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for their gutlessness toward the fascist junta in the White House, nope, not deserving of a vote.

In fact, he says this guy, Ralph Nader, who pretty much created the EPA, is a Republican stooge.

But Obama, Clinton, and McCain....those corporate hacks deserve our vote? And Reed Hundt is the great prognosticator of what is good for the working people like me. I wonder if Reed was one of the people who advised Enron while he was working at "The Firm". Wiki it.

Listen, you can be as "realistic" as you want, but Ralph Nader does deserve consideration, and in a real liberal government that promotes people over profits, he would be an oracle.

I will gladly align myself with the Ralph Nader's of the world over the Reed Hundt's. Any day of the week.

Nader has been a highly paid lobbyist for the insurance industry for a long time.

That is why he will not release his tax returns and fought insurance reform in California.

He goes to small consumer groups and gicves speaches at consumer onferences but only if the consumer group can pay a 3)K speaking fee.

He took the Green Party's money and ran. He (and "his"organizations) did not contribute to his own campain inany significant way.

Lets Kick this phoney old gasbag to the crub.

Good ol' Ralph.

The national IQ test arrives again.

I agree with many people's observations about a DLC insider named Reed Hundt. Let's not forget that Josh's headline on the Nader announcement story took the same angle, too.

"... yet all but extreme, angry, illogical, and utterly estranged people will agree that Nader has no business again trying to tilt an election... "

Really. I guess it is extreme to believe in Palestinian rights. Or perhaps that one belongs to the "utterly estranged" category. How about single payer health care. 56% of doctors support that but if a citizen does, is he illogical or must he vote for someone who opposes this solution.

And the list goes on and on. You can't pigeonhole us into 2 parties, especially when the liberal one is especially unrepresentative of us.

Now we have caftan-gate. Pure Rove, brought to us by the Clinton camp (courtesy of Drudge).

For the past 7.5 years I've loathed Ralph Nader, like many others, have wished that someone had zeroed in on him in 2000.

If, by hook or crook, Hillary pulls the rug out from under Obama and becomes the nominee, then I am no longer a Democrat. I will vote for Nader.

Anyone who buys into the drivel that there is no substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans, and that there would have been no difference between a Gore vs. Bush administration, much less an Obama v. MCain one, is flat out delusional.

We would NOT be in Iraq if Nader had not run. We would NOT have Alito or Roberts on the SCOTUS if Nader had not run, we WOULD have already signed onto the Kyoto treaty... and those are just the big ones off the top of my head. We would be in a profoundly different (and better) place if Nader and the moronic malcontents who voted for him and bothered to do their due diligence and stop being self-absorbed boomer "activist" idiots.

That any rational adult could even begin to post anything other than abject scorn here at the thought of yet another self-indulgent Nader run is a pathetic commentary on said posters capacity for anything resembling cogent thought.

To all Nederites, et your head out of your asses and wake up.

A lot of people condemn Nader for running because he might "spoil" the election for the Democrats, but there is actually a related, but more important, issue that I believe goes to the very heart of what is missing in all of Nader's campaigns.

I've written about it in a very short piece called The Key Issue Suspiciously Missing from Ralph Nader's "Table".

This is an issue that Nader often tries to sidestep, but which really challenges him to back up his claim that his campaign is about opening up the doors to more voices and parties.

all but extreme, angry, illogical, and utterly estranged people will agree that Nader has no business again trying to tilt an election

So that would make you moderate, serene, logical, and utterly integrated? Alrighty then.