Glennalicious

Actually, you can't assume Nader would have been allowed in the debates. The Democrats would not have wanted it. Unless he raised a certain amount of private money, he probably would not have been allowed to debate. That was the criteria used by the media for the debates, and was used to exclude Kucinich and others from some debates.

Also, you should read about how "public financing" works in this country. It is MATCHING funds, and you must raise a certain amount of private money to prove your "viability" in order to take advantage of it. See this.

Note that McCain is now trying to have it both ways, and wriggle out of the public system after taking advantage of it.

I think the point that our incredibly corrupt corporate-funded pseudo-democratic system is even more dangerous than George W. Bush remains true despite some good points you make above. None of our spending priorities or foreign policy decisions are based on rational politics. They are based on what the funders of the political system desire.

I disagree, as public sentiment kept Kucinich in the debates for some time, even when Clinton/Obama tried to exclude everyone. Having both Kucinich and Edwards helped both leading candidates refine and revise their policies in order to leave the more liberal candidates no real room to define themselves.

Nader could easily have matching funds. Enough people would donate to him, and he could even use his profits from his investments in Halliburton and Exxon.

I agree about the funders and the corruption of the political system, but Nader changes nothing by politically refusing to work within the accepted system. Either he should remain an aloof public advocate and use the same means he did when he used lawsuits to change law, or accept the reality of the political system. Considering how effective Nader was in the 60s and 70s, why doesn't he become the elder legal reform expert to help change things like the EPA and FDA?

Gore is a better example of someone who learns from his losses, and decides that his energy is better spent on creating a groundswell of support for change.

Regarding the investments, that's because he invests in mutual funds such as Fidelity Magellan. You invest in nasty companies too if you are investing in mutual funds through your retirement fund.

Glenn - Thank you for posting this. You eloquently summed up my argument against Nader for the last 8 years. My Berkeley and San Francisco friends would always remind me of Nader's vital role as a third party candidate and the bankruptcy of the US two-party system. Yet, and you said it best, because of our (admittedly very imperfect) political system, the Dems and Republicans are basically big-tent parties already comprising the coalitions that in Europe are comprised of multiple smaller parties. As the Greens formed a successful coalition with the Social Democrats in Germany, so should Nader try to work with the Democratic Party from the inside, rather than act as a spoiler from the outside. It might also help if he ran for another elected position before pursuing yet another delusionary run for the presidency. (Hell, even Jerry Brown was a two-term governor of California - not to mention mayor of Oakland). Just saying.

"Nader changes nothing by politically refusing to work within the accepted system"

Okay, Glenn, you're ignoring or rejecting the fundamental argument I share with Nader that nothing will change while the "accepted system" continues. But that is the position I describe and you should appreciate that for us no talk about "refining and revising" the policies of candidates and parties can even approach that critique; those policies are not going to be based on what you or any other progressive thinks they should be, and certainly not on reason, as Barry reminds us. None of us should be satisfied with a government run for someone else's profit.

I assume when you speak of Nader not working within the "accepted system" you mean the system which has protected us from advancing when and where we should, the system which shuts out anything other than the two conservative parties (yes, you know even the Democrats would be only a Right-wing fringe party if it operated anywhere else in the First World) endorsed and paid for by the corporations.

I don't accept that system. It's nowhere in the Constitution; it certainly doesn't reflect human diversity; it's creaking mechanisms are plainly embarrassing and absurd; it absolutely is not up to attacking the job which the nation, and the world, needs now; and at least some of us are profoundly aware of all of this. I mean people like Nader first of all, but there would be millions of others demanding electoral reform above anything else if Americans weren't so corrupted by a compromised and hysterical media, and by elected officials who talk and act like demagogues or zombies.

I don't have any "legitimate" arguments against Nadar other than I'm shocked he hasn't been assassinated since costing Gore the election. And that if he tries to fuck up our party and cost the democrats the white house this time, I'll be the one to pull the trigger.

What frustrates me about Nader is that right now, Americans really could use a great leader in consumer advocacy. Nader could step back into that role and do very well as a leader.

Just as Al Gore seemed to do his best outside of the White House, so too could Nader at this moment in time. Today, corporations have nothing but contempt for customers and things are getting out of hand in terms of fairness to consumers, customer service and product reliability and lifespan.