I would not worry about Nader.

[Cascadian]

The reason the Democrats should not fret about Nader is that he has no real backing. He does not have the Green Party's backing. Plus I think he already putting his foot in his mouth by saying if he is president he wants to see Bush impeached. Excuse me, but don't you have to be a president to be impeached??? And making allegations of the "liberal intelligencia". What on earth is he talking about.

Ralph. I always had some respect for you. I voted for you in 1996. I almost voted for you in 2000, but man just give it up. You are not going to make any impact this time around. Almost everybody knows that they cannot afford to back a third party candidate this time. The goal is to get rid of Bush. If that means voting for John Kerry then so be it. Try running again some other year like 2012.


John

[mouse7]

1. Nader has Eugene Primitivist and Black Bloc. That's it

I wish there weren't so many energetic West Coast kids involved in those huge steaming piles of silliness, but they are. Other than that and maybe Amy Goodman, Nader has nobody.

[Cascadian]

2. Which is why his new campaign will fail.

He won't even get 1 per cent of the vote. Why in the hell is he doing this? This election is too critical to play around as some vanity candidate.


John

[union_maid]

3. He'll have RNC money

If it weren't for that I wouldn't give him a thought. That worries me a lot, though. The Republicans have nothing right now. Nothing they've thrown against the wall has stuck so far. I know they're just getting started, but for every bit of ammunition they have against Kerry and/or Edwards there's plenty against Bushco. I'm sure they're looking at Ralph as their not-so-secret weapon. They care not if he says that Bush should be impeached, especially after his term in office is up, as long as they get the election again. They'll just declare a mandate and do as they wish.