Democrats may have received the grimmest news of the primary season Feb. 25 at Meet the Press as Ralph Nader officially announced he will take a shot at the White House in 2008.
"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," Nader said. "In that context, I have decided to run for president."
On Feb. 27, Nader announced his running mate will be Matt Gonzalez, the 42-year old lawyer and activist from San Francisco. Gonzalez is a prominent member of the Green Party and is highly regarded in the Bay Area political community.
Nader last ran for president in the 2000 elections as a candidate of the Green Party, which was officially formed in the wake of his failed 1996 campaign.
Nationwide, he received 2,883,105 votes for 2.74 percent of the popular vote, missing the 5 percent needed to qualify the Green Party for federally distributed public funding in the next election.
Though he failed to make a serious swing at the White House, his support helped the Greens qualify for ballot status in many new states as a result of the election.
He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about. Sen. Barack ObamaHis 2000 campaign relied heavily on a number of major endorsements, including the California Nurses Association and the United Electrical Workers.
While Nader is heavily supported by the Green Party and other far-left organiztions, many Democrats accuse him of pulling of liberal voters from supporting Al Gore votes in key states, mainly Florida.
"Obviously, it's not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, speaking to reporters shortly after Nader's announcement. "I remember when he ran before, it didn't turn out well for anybody -- especially our country."
Nader's candidacy is widely considered a key factor that led to Gore losing the 2000 presidential election, and for pushing George W. Bush into the White House for the first time.
Nader denies these accusations and has said repeatedly that the Democrats themselves are to blame for Bush's victory that year, and has even said there is no difference between Gore and Bush.
Sen. Barack Obama, campaigning in Lorain, Ohio, was equally critical of Nader saying, "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about."
My Take
As far as I can tell, Clinton and Obama are exactly right in their opinions of Nader. While Nader is a very intellligent leader and qualified candidate who has brought much needed corporate reform, it would take a miracle for him to become the next president of the United States.
All that his candidacy will do is hurt the Democratic party, and help push Sen. John McCain into the White House; a move to which Nader would seemingly be opposed.
Bloomberg will not run in 2008
While the Democrats may be hurt by Nader's candidacy, the Republicans dodged a bullet when Michael Bloomberg officially announced he will not be running for president in 2008.
After two years of sharply denying his presidential ambitions, the New York Mayor officially declared he will not run for president in a New York Times' editorial Wedesday.
"I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president," he said in the Times' article.
The 66-year-old billionaire businessman went on to say he will try to "steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance."
The biggest obstacle Bloomberg faced in establishing a campaign was getting his name on the ballot in time. Some states would have required Bloomberg to collect hundreds of thousands of signatures by March 5.My Take
While Bloomberg is out of contention for the presidential race, it would not be a surprise to see him on either party's ticket as a vice-presidential candidate.
He will likely side with the candidate that he feels would aproach politics in the most moderate fashion. As he said in the editorial, he would support a leader who "takes an independent, nonpartisan approach."
His strong willingness to work across the table would be perfect to draw independent voters in the general election this fall, and the fact that he has billions to contribute to a campaign will make both the eventual Republican and Democratic nominee strongly consider the New York Mayor.
Knoxville Weighs In
"Even though Nader doesn't have a shot, he'll probably get my vote. When I look at Obama, Clinton and McCain, all I see is the stereotypical politician. At least Nader acts like himself."
-- Sam W.
"I love Ralph Nader. I really think he has a legitimate shot at getting in the White House this time. He's the smartest man running and he would be the best leader for our country. His experience dealing with corporate America is absolutely unmatched."-- Andrew T.
"Nader is a joke. He stole the election from Gore and the Democrats twice, and I guess he's trying to give the election to Republicans for the third time time in a row."
-- Katie S.
"Bloomberg would be a perfect fit for the Republican or Democrat ticket, there's no going wrong with him on the ballot. His ability to work with opposition, and his money would give anyone he sides with the election."
-- Jon B.
"Bloomberg is a great leader, one of the few with common sense. I hated to see him drop out but hope that he ends up on a ticket.
-- Courtney R.
Comments
John commented, on February 29, 2008 at 7:40 p.m.:
How did he steal the election from Gore twice? in 2004 the dem candidate was John Kerry.
Ben J. commented, on February 29, 2008 at 8:33 p.m.:
As a man who devoted his entire life to steer the country in the right course, Mr. Nader cannot sit still when the most critical issues are totally ignored by all major party pols: the lobby money that corrupts the political system to the core and a single-payer universal healthcare.
Ralph Nader is smart enough to know he won't be elected. But his candidacy will color the political discourse and keep these seminal issues alive. And I hope next time around there will be a candidate who will carry his torch.
Ben commented, on February 29, 2008 at 10:15 p.m.:
It's unfortunate that most voters view popularity as a presidential credential. Whether it be a look or a voice, political record matter more than those superficialities.
Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are the only candidates who could work to eliminate corporatism in America. While most voters are distracted by immigration, war, abortion, gay marriage, etc. corporations continue to buy more influence over our elected representatives.
Kipper commented, on March 1, 2008 at 4:12 a.m.:
Ralph Nader is not who Democrats should be worried about, it's the guy the media has been hiding from the American public, Ron Paul.
He is not only still in the race, he has millions of supporters. The people who haven't heard about him yet,will.
Paul supporters,!00's of thousands of them who have switched from the Democratic Party to Republican to vote for Dr.Paul have speculated about voting for Nader if Paul was to concede, rather than vote Democrat. Regardless of what people have been led to believe, he has no plans of doing that.
When people start reading his issues and stop listening to the media, they will see he is not the "kook" they are trying to make him out to be. He is a very intelligent man with a plan to give America back to the people and save what's left of The Constitution.
Many people think that he is against gay rights and abortion and a whole list of other things, but in reality, he just thinks that individual states should regulate them and not the Federal Government.
The votes that the Democrats are worried about loosing are already gone.Those voters are not going to vote for them regardless, as they lost respect for the Democrats allowing Bush and Cheney to remain in office, not stopping the war in Iraq and not standing up against the North American Union.
Dil commented, on March 11, 2008 at 3:49 p.m.:
Blaming Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in 2000 betrays the fact democrats take the progressives for granted. No matter how much to the right the democratic candidate moves the progressives must vote for them because they represent a lesser evil. Why should anyone settle for lesser evil? If we do, we will get more of the same. I wish the democratic leadership would talk to Ralph and come to an understanding. That way they can get the vote of the progressives. Well, they may loose some from the right of center. But would they then complain it is the people to the right of center who cost their election -- would they make the same lesser-evil argument with them? No, they will still blame the progressives, they made the democrats move too much to the left and therefore it is once again the progressives who must take the blame. Democrats -- make up your mind, do you want to be progressive?