No, I don't regret voting for Nader at all. The problem with the democratic party is that they can't ever come up with anything meaningful. They get caught in the limbo between being smart, open minded individuals and being politicians. i.e. dumbing themselves down. 'We might as well have handed the film over to the publicty department,' (Prater Violet, Christopher Isherwood, on politicians). After seven years, and yet another victory, not to mention the scandal behind the first one, I really think the question of whether Nader blew the whole election by running couldn't be more malignantly misdirected. Let's try to figure out why instead fifty million people are still voting for Bush (i.e. education) in 2004, why he hasn't been impeached (along with his whole staff) and why the media runs along with these things and why the people, all of us, go right along with them. There are many more urgent questions not being asked that allow this country to be sent on the hell-bent path the U.S. is on. And intends on taking the rest of the world down with it. Questions that even a Barack Obama and a Hillary Clinton aren't even close to asking. Ralph Nader knows he has nothing to lose, that he's not a spoiler, and that many of the things he's saying are based on fundamental truths. Not neccessarily comforting things people want to hear on a day-to-day basis.

It is wrong to blame Nader for Bush's elections for three reasons. First, where does it say that there can only be two political parties? It is my firm opinion that if anything can reform our political system, it would be the emergence of third parties at the national level. Sometimes third party candidacies will benefit the Republicans (as with the 2000 election), and sometimes they will benefit the Democrats (as with the 1992 election). Regardless, third party candidates should be welcomed, not maligned.

Second, the most obvious and logical object of blame for Bush's election and reelection is the people who voted for him.

Third, in Florida before the recount Gore was only behind Bush by 537 votes. Even if one considers the probable result of a completed recount (and if one allows for the Voter Purge that removed people from the voter rolls who, for the most part, were eligible to vote and who in a large number of cases would have voted for Gore), Gore still at most won by a very small margin. Instead of wagging their fingers at Nader, maybe liberals should ask themselves why was it that close in the first place. The election preceded the economic downturn and people were generally unaware or unconcerned about anything going on overseas. Gore should have trampled Bush, but he did not even win his or Clinton's home states where the Nader-factor was not an issue.

If people are inclined to wag their fingers at anybody (and I'm not sure that is worthwhile at this point), there are three more justified targets: Clinton for his indiscretion and lying under oath (he had to have known how conniving and ruthless the Republicans were); Gore for running an inept campaign; and the Democrats for not giving a lot of people any reason to vote for them.

Last, I would like to ask these liberals if they ever hear conservatives whining about Ross Perot. I am sure most of them will say "No," and I think a good reason for this might include the word "spineless."

george monbiot said it best: al gore won the 2000 election, and he has ralph nader to thank for it.

as a full-on nader/laduke campaigner in 2000, i watched the polling numbers for them climb into the 7% range through september. the fear and guilt campaign of the gore camp kicked into gear in october, and after the final tallies in november came in, we can now conclude that gore's campaign shaved off about 4% of nader's vote.

i would be interested in knowing exactly how many people would have taken no interest in the 2000 election, were it not for nader's campaign. but from where i stand nader accomplished what so many candidates have failed to do: bring disinterested citizens into the elections.

gore stole the newly-interested voters from nader through an organized campaign of fear and guilt. indeed, it was the only effective political message that the gore camp managed to generate in the entire campaign season. to this date, that lie is what is remembered: nader the spoiler.

i am proud to have voted for nader, and my life would have taken significantly different turns without his candidacy. my friendships, my political reality, and my personal behavior have all been shaped by the intensity of learning and sharing that was fostered during that campaign season. may we have many more like it.

It is infinitely more important to this country that a third-party candidate can run meaningfully in a presidential election than it is that Bush will have been in the White House for 8 years. The latter is a relatively small blip on the radar. The fact that a candidate that is not a Democrat or Republican can run and make a dent in the polls is truly magnificent. Saying that Nader ruined it or shouldn't have run is more than indulgent heindsight... it's going directly against what the country is founded on.
When Americans are too scared and intimidated to vote for anyone outside the 2 parties is when we truly lose our freedom and let ourselves be ruled by fear. The "terrorists" won't have to take away our freedom... we'll be able to do that all on our own.

No, I don't regret voting for Nader twice. I'm in CA where Kerry was going to take the state anyway even with all the corrupt Diebold voting machines.

Non-voters should have more regret than Naderites; it takes like 20 minutes to vote and not voting is not a clear statement that you don't support the system. I bet most people who claim to not vote still pay their taxes.

ralph nader is james carville's excuse for two lousy presidential campaigns. without ralph, somebody might take a good look at this good ol boy and dump his ass

HELL NO, I don't regret voting for Nader in 1996, 2000 or 2004. Liberals can't have it both ways. They can't blame Nader for costing Gore the 2000 election and then say that Gore won the 2000 election. What'll it be?

Some time after 2000 when I read an editorial by a "repentant Nader" voter, I paused to answer that question for myself. Did I regret my vote. Hell no! I'm a worst-case scenario person so I didn't give my support without thinking long and hard about whether it was worth the risk. (Not that I buy that Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run for a number of reasons most of which other posters have already gone over)

But I realized I did have a big regret about 2000: I never got involved! I talked to some family and close friends and got some votes for Nader that way, hung a Nader poster in my dorm window, but I could have done so much more. Why didn't I get volunteer for the campaign? So in 2004 I repented and became an active local volunteer in the Nader/Camejo. No more regrets. Looking forward to 2008.

Hell no I don't regret it....

I will just echo what we have heard above: Why do we keep getting hassled and blamed for Bush. Why don't you hassle the ASSHOLES WHO VOTED FOR BUSH in the first place?

Maybe we can blame the people who voted for Bush?

In 2000 I was 18 and able to vote for the first time. I was so upset with the lack of real candidates, then Nader came along.

I voted for Nader in 2000.

I volunteered for the campaign in 2004.

In 2006 I ran my own Green Party Campaign for the Ohio State Board of Education, gaining 34,000 votes.

The way I see it, so long as the two parties can't put forth good candidates, there is never a reason to regret voting your conscience.

Ralph Nader has been the excuse of James Carville who steered the two Presidential campaigns away from anti-war, progressive goals and lost. Shifting the blame has been their game. I'm proud of voting for the guy who stuck to his principles.

Nader was the perfect candidate for those who would rather be different than right. Be honest: does anyone actually think Nader would have made a good or even competent president? A perfect example was his comment regarding 9/11. He claimed it would not have happened on his watch, as he had complained about the lack of airport security for years. That's right, you become president and all your pet projects and complaints are corrected in the blink of an eye. This man, with decades of experience in Washington, had a child's view of the presidency and how it operates. If his miserable candidacy accomplished nothing else, it put to rest forever the idea there is no real difference between the two parties. His petit tragedy is that, pre-2000 he could have rightly been thought the greatest living American. The larger tragedy is ours.

Sherod, for the record, I hear conservatives whine about Ross Perot All. The. Time! And I don't just mean right-wing whackos. Sensible moderate conservatives were absolutly convinced that Clinton's election was less than legitimate because of Ross Perot's 'spoiler' roll. Also, this is one of the main roots of the Clinton hatred so common on the right.

I have voted for Nader for over 20 years. I write him in if he's not on the ballot. The Repubs and Dems need to be replaced. Change is needed. Remember what they say about people who continue to do the same thing but expect a different result. If you like things the way they are keep voting for Repubs and Dems.

I voted for Ralph Nader for President in 2000 and again in 2004. I would vote for him IF he runs in 2008. I was, however, not doing a protest vote, I was casting an HONEST vote.

I am not stupid. I volunteered for Ballot Access in MA in 2004 for Ralph Nader.

Nader has been busy saying a Corporation is not a person. And, he has accused Bush of being a Corporation. I wrote the Washington Post, who professed complete inability to comprehend the accusation, that the PROOF lies in the budget and the horrific deficit still growing with Bush's Military Industrial Complex. I cited the appendix in Helen Caldicott's book, "the New Nuclear Danger" which shows the budget breakout for the military funding and shows the unconscionable levels allocated to Lockheed Martin as a number one in the lead, example.

Generally, I believe Nader knows the corruption of the two parties, both Democrats and Republicans is showing in the CORPORATE GREED MANIFEST in the extreme with the emphasis on the dollar and profit (while plunging us into trillions debt and global debtor not creditor, from a previous much more honorable creditor, globally).

The War in Iraq is unwanted, and Bush sees escalation as his forecast. In Massachusetts, the public was desperate and cried out, "Anybody but Bush!" They had, apparently, those who had voted for Nader, been SINCERE since they claimed to me during ballot access in Cambridge, Ma in 2004, "I voted for him in 2000 and he didn't win!" They were angry.

I was astonished at their anger. I thought that should have motivated them to do the WORK REQUIRED to make the WIN happen.

But, no, stranger than strange, they ran for cover with the "lesser of two evils" allowing the entrenched ugly powermongering status quo greed to rule again in both 2000 and 2004.

Sorry I voted for Nader? GUARANTEED NO.

What to do?

IF he runs again, BACK HIM in word and deed, every Nader supporter OWES backing to Nader. Word and DEED more than dollars.

Sanity for the Dollars, but WORD AND DEED -- should be a winning hand.

We got Bush because you guys so proudly voted for Nader. Don't worry though, you're not the only people who's idealism makes them not care about final outcomes. You helped the very fundamentalists who are our biggest enemy.

Go ahead and find blame elsewhere to justify yourselves, but the fact remains, thanks to empowering Bush, your blind idealism pushed the whole world the wrong way.

I blame 2004 on idiot "stay-the-course" idealism, but even 2004 was only made possible because of -your- 2000 idealism.

The way you all act so proud regardless of world consequences reminds us so much of "no-regrets" Bush, et al. I challenge every one of you to explain why the world is a better place now with Bush instead of Gore.