Ralph’s no spoiler, but this is not the time for third-party runs.
By Joshua Holland AlterNet Staff Writer, Posted February 25, 2008
In announcing another quixotic presidential bid on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader was his usual cogent self, asking, as he does, why so many in the “liberal intelligentsia” condemn him for discussing the important issues that the two major parties ignore.Although the Democratic debates during this primary season are about a thousand times better than those of recent years, he was, as usual, right — why the hell haven’t the Democrats come up with a coherent position on trade, for example?
As he spoke, one could almost hear Democrats across the country pulling knives from their sheaths. Another Nader run, another opportunity for Democrats — even progressive Dems — to attack him, in the words of Michael Tomasky, “with lupine ferocity.”
At the heart of that animalistic urge is the notion that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election and was responsible for placing Shrub in the White House, a revisionist history that’s as ludicrous as it is pervasive within Democratic circles. The reality — the hard data point that makes it a perfectly specious narrative — is that Al Gore, had he immediately and forcefully demanded a recount of all the votes in the state of Florida, would have won and would probably be finishing up his second term right now. It was his decision — one that Nader had nothing to do with — to contest only a handful of counties that would ultimately cost him the presidency (and the United States so much more than that)
[For the rest of this article, go here to AlterNet.]