POP LOCK ROUTINE!

Better than Gore.

I was offered a flier for this on the UW campus today, and when I said I no longer supported his candidacy (R.I.P. Nader Support, c. 2004), I was asked why. Justifying my disinterest in the man seemed as relevant as his current political role, so I just kept walking.

Is it for a joint appearance with Senator Clinton?

Oh how the mighty have fallen...eight years ago he packed Key Arena, this year he'll be lucky if he fills half of Kane Hall.

Still, I would/will vote for him instead of McCain or Clinton.

Just Sayin @6, two things:

1. Good on you for voting your conscience!
2. If you actually believe that a Nader presidency would be preferable to either Clinton or McCain--hell, if you believe it would anything other than a national catastrophe that makes 8 years of Bush II look like pothole--then please for love of all that is good, go get yourself a clue.

RNC paying for his flight?

Will I be kicked out of Dem meetings if I attend his rally?

Should I take off my Obama pin?

There's a typo in your post. It should read "student/low-wattage".

If Clinton steals the nomination, I would vote for Nader. There is not much difference between Clinton and McCain, except McCain would be better for the Native Americans. Clinton thinks she is a cowboy with her, “this is how the west was won,” horseshit. If Clinton prevails, the African American community is not going to vote for her anyway, so you might as well vote Nader or some other third part candidate.

To Washington? No.

To Florida or Ohio? Maybe.

Oops, forgot the @8

@11: you're lucky there isn't an IQ test for voting, because you, and all of you "Clinton is the same as McCain" shitheads, would fail miserably.

For starters, google "supreme court".

Seriously, Naderites are the lowest form of life on the planet.

@14

Oh, please, you dumb bitch. Is there not a Slog post up now on how Clinton wants the US to be in Iraq for 50 years, instead of McCain’s 100? And given Clinton’s conservative record, what makes you think she would appoint good nominees? It is a moot question anyway, she will not win the Whitehouse. If Clinton steals the nomination, the Democrats are going to lose, so why waste anymore time on the Democratic party? After 8 years of Bush, why does it seem possible that a Republican can win the Whitehouse?

15, there's no difference between clinton and mccain? remember, nader is the moaning prig who told us that there was no difference between gore and bush. i despise clinton, but i'd still vote for her in a heartbeat over that sloppy know-nothing mccain. she's a competent wonk, he's a fuzzy-headed old fart who doesn't even pretend to know or care about the details of much of anything. remind you anybody we've had to endure for the last 7+ years? btw, fnarf is not a dumb bitch. he's one of the most insightful commenters on this blog. and seen the latest polls? they have hrc beating that know-nothing by several percentage points.

Hillary is doing far more damage than Ralph ever could.

Wait, wait. Clinton's "conservative record"? Her record is strikingly similar to Obama's. Say what you will about personalities (all of which I think is bullshit), but they both walk the party line like they're supposed to.

If you're gonna vote for a non-traditional candidate vote for the Green Party candidate, not Ralph Nader, a man who actually is power mad enough to keep running even though the party he was with before (the Greens!) don't want him. In some states, in order for a party to be considered viable for state elections funds, a candidate from their party has to get a certain percentage of votes in a state or nationwide election. When Nader ran on his own last time, he split the green vote, effectively killing the green party in multiple states.

Seattlites, please throw only biodegradable products at him, like flower seeds and pies made of manure.

Where is the pigeon-darter when America needs him/her?

@17 - Exactly. People ask Nader why he runs, and whether he worries that he's swinging elections towards the Republicans.

Yet, here's Hillary, just about mathematically eliminated from the race, continuing to throw shit at Obama. The worst part is far more people take her seriously than they do Nader.

Aside from spoiling the 2000 election what exactly has Ralph Nader been doing for the last eight years to oppose the imbecilic policies of the Bush administration? OK, so he popped out of his hole like Punxatawney Phil on Groundhog Day to announce his run for the 2004 election (which got an abysmally few votes; at least some 2000 Naderites learned their lesson) but other than that, where has he been? After 2004 he vanished from sight only to reappear now that another election is upon us. He's like the Brigadoon of American politics--emerging for his brief moment every four years to make a jackass out of himself.

What qualifies him to be President? Even Idiot Boy was governor of a large state before moving into the White House--Nader hasn't even held public office as mayor of some Hooterville in the Oklahoma panhandle. Attend the rally if you must, but keep those manure pies handy.

@ 20

A better question is what have the Dems done to fight the idiot polices of Bush in the last 8 years? And after they won congress? Nothing. We are sliding into a depression, and the fucking war still grinds on. It Clinton weasels her way into the nomination, the Democratic party will be committing suicide. You think African Americans and the fired up youth vote is going to vote for Clinton? Dream on.

Yes, African-Americans will vote for Clinton. This is because they are not in fact retarded.

All this hate between supporters of the two Democratic candidates is almost as retarded as voting for Nader. If disaffected supporters of the one who doesn't get the nomination end up voting for anyone other than the one that does get the nomination, it will rise to being just as retarded as voting for Nader.

Lest you think I am some sort of Clintonite, I was a county level delegation chair for Obama and personally engineered an extra Obama delegate to the State convention (at the cost of a Clinton delegate). Even so, I would just as soon cut off my nuts as vote for anyone other than Clinton if she somehow "steals" the nomination.

#22
Right on with the right on.

Last times around, Nader got most of his money from Republicans, and the reason why of course should be clear to all.

Has anybody investigated, is he getting any money yet this time, and if so, where's it coming from?

Please, oh, please, someone -- if Nader gets it in the face with a manure pie, or *any* kind of pie, please post a photo. Please? Please?

So let's see, which presidential candidates oppose the Patriot Act, oppose the Iraq war and all its funding, support impeachment, support true single-payer healthcare, support gay marriage, electoral reform that would do away with the 'spoiler' effect, and support doing away with corporate personhood?

Obama? Clinton? McCain?
Nope.
Only Ralph Nader.

Last time we had a Democrat in the White House, he brought us The Defense of Marriage Act, 'Welfare Reform,' the Communications Act of 1996, NAFTA, 'Don't ask, don't tell,' and impeachment. Thank you, Bill.

As for the Bush/Cheney years, who voted to give Bush the authority to preemptively invade Iraq, voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it, and voted to fund and continue the war with no timetable for withdrawal? The Democrats.

Who could have stopped the war from happening, or have ended it by now?
The Democrats.

Who took impeachment of the most criminal president and vice president in living memory "off the table"?
The Democrats.

So whose side are you on, boys?
Are you going to vote your conscience or cast your lot with the cowardly Democrats once again?

@24 last time around Bush won the popular vote. Kerry was pandering to conservative issues, ignoring his progressive base, playing tough-guy ex-soldier, essentially applauding Bush's ongoing war. time before last time around Gore was agreeing with Bush faster than Bush could agree with himself. he failed to win his own home state (who was the last president who failed to win his own state?), had he won it, he would have become president. no amount of subtly infused republican money could ever match the incompetence of the previous two democratic presidential candidates.

this time around remains to be seen, but please don't slam a guy for running for president, last i checked this was a democracy. if you don't like Nader or his policies, don't vote for him, that's how democracy works.

@26-well said!

and by the way, i've not heard 1/100th the bitching from republicans over Ross Perot "spoiling" the election for Bush #1 as i've heard weenie democrats bitch about Ralph. Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote in '92, nary a word from the Rs. Nader gets less than 4% in 2000 and the Ds are still bitching. put up a winner if you want to win. it appears you’ve done well with Obama in terms of his competitiveness as a candidate, congratulate yourselves, but trashing Nader, or the issues he raises instead of addressing them, is a footpath to handing the presidency to McCain. ignoring the problems with our democracy and our nation’s policies and keeping quiet on corporate control in order to get their funding is the mistake made by the previous two democratic candidates. It's the mistake Obama has already made. so watch out if you don’t want a similar result.