That he stayed in the race in 2000 was tragedy. (See: Invasion of Iraq, 2003, and subsequent occupation.) That he came back in 2004 was unfortunate; his entry in 2008 is farce. Farce because it suggests detachment from political reality (the differences between the Republican and Democratic nominees are so faint that we can say, What the hell!) and, worse, narcissism. The fact that it won't make any difference in the outcome actually is sad.
My CQ Politics colleague Craig Crawofrd writes that Nader may still have an impact:
We could be witnessing why Obama should have tried a little harder to court Edwards. And why the Democratic frontrunner should not have dissed Nader, as Al Gore did eight years ago.The spoiler is back.
But conservative Blake Dvorak also dismisses Nader, even if many conservatives wish he could hurt the Democrat's candidate this time around:
Let's get through this up top: Ralph Nader has run for president twice -- once as a factor and once as a non-factor. The question is whether Nader's fortunes are cyclical or whether they're on a steep slope of rapidly diminishing returns. He'll have his supporters, but his candidacy isn't the third-party run that will dramatically change this race.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment