Kucinich and Sharpton did it right; Nader is doing it wrong

[php1949]

I doubt if many people realize it, but Dennis Kucinich has been the a huge influence on this election and American politics in general. He has educated the other candidates and America on all the important issues. He was the first candidate to openly declare that we should withdraw from anti-American trade agreements such as NAFTA. He was the first candidate to make universal healthcare and issue and the first candidate to offer a real solution to the Iraq quagmire. Al Sharpton has also brought much to this election and American politics, being the first candidate and public figure to openly call Bush a liar. Both of these men have made contributions to our great country, without becoming a spoiler and sending votes to George Bush.

Nader is doing it all wrong. He should have entered the race as a democrat and participated in the debates. He could have contributed a great deal. That is however, hard work. With the exhaustive schedule of primaries, it takes real committment to run a real campaign. Nader is however not committed to running a real campaign, but rather he is content to let others do the work. He has decided instead to just jump in at the end, bypassing the grueling debates, to become a third party spoiler, helping George Bush serve another term. The real shame in that our children and grandchildren will have to pay the price for Nader's ego trip.

Fortunately, Nader is a has-been. He destroyed his credibility in 2000 by helping Bush get elected. He will get less than 1% of the votes.

[AmericanErrorist]

1. Huh?

You say that "...our children and grandchildren will have to pay the price for Nader's ego trip." But then you say that "...will get less than 1% of the vote." Which is it?

[AmericanErrorist]

2. I will give you lenenicy

If you think that Nader's last run will be the thing that will be explained to our youth.

[LimpingLib]

3. They would do it right in 2008 too but get beat 30-1 by Liebermann.

Id rather have the Iraq invasion be over with in 2003 and screwed up like it was by a GOPer than be looking forward to a future where a Democrat President (like Liebermann) does nearly as bad.


Had Gore won in 2000 (based on the issues and stands he took)then thats the future we would be looking at.I base that on my assumption that Liebermann would be Gores hand picked successor in 2008.

Im not tying to BS you , I am sincere when I make that analysis.


Nader has moved mountains. Democrats can change their minds (like Gore) or get the heck out of our party or at least get out of their delusions that they represent the base of the party. Gore has changed his mind from 3 years ago and he is the bigger man for it. A true leader IMO. Like Nader. We have many leaders on the left and should admire them all.A folower is one who gangs up and does the popular thing ....like say bashing Nader.I give everybody a few months to grow up otherwise Im going to start marking people and though nobody should care what the heck I think people sure need to open their eyes and simply grow up. (Im trying to be nice but the next joker that blames Nader for the Iraq war needs to do a little self analysis then analyze things from alot bigger perspective than themself thereafter)

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Even if he had wanted to, dems never would have let him in

Let's hope he carries the message for us, but either drops off the ballot or just doesn't pull votes.

Of course, that's assumin $hrubco doesn't steal this one too, in which case it's all moot.