« The $20,000 Coffee Maker | Main | Apple Updates MacBook Pro line »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


my fellow neigbour, i disagree with you so so so much. he stands for issues which the other candidates don't even bother bringing up on to the table, from what i see as the a two party dictatorship in the US. Nader is your saviour, savour it. He gives a choice to the American people which the over hyped Obama doesn't. Nader is real change, not pseudo-change. 


[this is good]


That's great but he's unelectable.  He's never held a political office and he doesn't even have the majority favor of liberals.  I had a really great history teacher in High School who would do all the right things and reform and blah blah blah but what does it matter if there's no chance he'll ever get to the White House?

Nader does more harm than good because he clouds reality for idealists who tend to be Democrats, sapping those votes (just like Ross Perot drained conservative votes in 1992, giving Clinton the edge).  How many terms will you vote in a Republican because you want to send a message?  Change isn't going to come from a philosopher president no matter how great a thing that would be.  His efforts are best used towards affecting the system from the outside.

I'm not against 3rd party candidates;  if there was a good 3rd party candidate with a strong message, I'd give him/her serious consideration.  However Nader has a history of distracting the liberal vote while never even getting close to a win (3% in 2000 and 0.4% in 2004).

You say Nader is change, I say he's false hope and offers absolutely no change; another 4 years of conservative rule.


First, it is overly naive to think that 'Change isn't going to come from a philosopher president no matter how great a thing that would be.' You actually think that he's less 'presidential' than 'obama'. that's nuts. First he is not a philosopher, he's a consumer advocate, with a much much far ranging knowledge on economics and politics than obama. he represents people like you in america, he's a true 'democrat' who actually stands for the people. obama's economic policies are more or less exactly the same as the republicans. how can you, and the lot of you call yourselves 'liberal' when you fail to acknowledge the meaning of the word. and who can you say he's unelectable, just becuase he's not black, and can't talk passionately to the people (which even Hitler did and won the people over) - does that represent ideals?
your worst comment (and which many so called 'liberals' and 'democrats' talk about) is that he's unelectable. what on earth does that mean?!!!!  He doesn't have majority favour over liberals is because the media sidelines him and other candidates too for a matter of fact. Obviously this media attention gets Clinton and Obama this so called 'liberal' support, because news companies are huge corporations and nader is a consumer advocate, he is therefore going to and is marginalised, so was Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Thge party machine of Clinton and Obama who are funded by Wall Street banks (not very 'democratic' is it?)) can afford to pay for the adverts and the like, in return these Wall Street banks want legislation in favour of putting their businesses forward.
Your naivety is common amongst the American so called 'liberals', to denounce his run for a presidential election is denying the people a 'choice' of candidate (again undemocratic) and policies which people will want to vote for. Just because a political runner get a very small number of votes, doesn't deny him, nor can people frown at him for running for president. And as Nader said on Meet the Press,

"If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought
to just pack up, close down, and re-emerge in a different form."


Your naivety is common amongst the American so called 'liberals', to
denounce his run for a presidential election is denying the people a
'choice' of candidate (again undemocratic)

Ha, you don't even live in the US and you're trying to tell me about my own candidates.  Being able to voice my opinion is democratic and doesn't deny anyone choice; its an opinion.  As far as opinions go, your rude, windy rhetoric is not one I'm inclined to listen to any longer.

If you'd like to continue to state your opinion, please do it on your own blog.


I am sorry that I do come across arrogant and this usually is the case when emotions and reasoning collides.

So, I am sorry.

Kymberlie R. McGuire

[this is good] This is exactly how I feel about Nader.


[this is good] Nader's intentions might solely be based on garnering that magical voting percentage to be a recognized party, but, his timing is a touch poor. Personally, I feel Nader's "success" is directly related to the Democratic party's lack of acknowledgment for liberal thought and it's gradual move towards moderate/quo.
Of course this is all subjective, then again, so is democracy.

The comments to this entry are closed.