Ralph Nader was a prophet. I believe he was wrong in 2000. His

[theophilus]

wrongness is largely responsible for what we have today. He would be pretty much right today, imo. The two parties are all about the cash now. Not just campaign funds but lining of the pockets to become rich beyond caring what happens to the rest of us. A "self-fulfilling prophecy"? He probably just did it for the money.

[fredamae]

1. Frankly, I wonder where he got "the money"?

[robcon]

2. Nader is a fool. The two parties are not at all equivalent.

The Democratic Party coninues to be the beacon of reason in the U.S.

[rusty fender]

8. You forgot the :sarcasm: thingy

The Democratic president isn't contiuning and esclating wars; it isn't the Dem president who is droning the hell out of several countries; it isn't the Dem president who is violating the Constitution, re the War Powers Act; the Democratic Party isn't voting(with the Rupukes) to fund the wars in perpetuity; no, the Dems, like Barney Frank, aren't putting entitlements on the table; it isn't the Dems who voted to continue the Bush tax cuts; it isn't the Dem president who is continuing the illegal wiretaps on American citizens. The Dems are so not at all like the Repukes!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[G_j]

10. enabling Bush's war crimes, torture, spying, lying...

a beacon of something...

[OHdem10]

3. The two parties are not exactly the same , however as the

DLC, Blue Dogs have gained ruling power in the Democratic
Party, the two parties are much much more aligned and therefore
they are willing to operate on the Republican Turf. In other
words they have taken the Democratic Party much farther
RIGHT. To observers it does appear on most issues they
are what used to be called Moderate Republican. The difference
is in the degree.

Therefore Nader is partially right. They are not exactly
the same.

The Cultural Issues show the most difference.
Economic Issues very close.

[ozone_man]

4. Not responsible.

Clinton left Bush with the stock market crashing in 2000, after a decade of irresponsible exuberance.

And Clinton set the stage for our present economic woes by repealing Glass-Steagall in 2000, deregulating derivatives, leading to subprime mess, zombie banks, still unfolding.

Bush seems to have created wars as a vehicle to capture oil resources, and pump up the crashing economy, and he deficit spent, which worked for a while. Obama seems content with continuing Bush's wars and escalating the deficit spoending to much higher levels, $1.4T instead of $400B.

How does Nader figure in other than to teach early on that there is little difference between the two corporate parties? He's just a messenger. Now, I do think that there are some principled Democrats like Dean, who make a difference, but will they ever get elected?

[marsis]

5. I hated Nader for what

he did in 2000. He was the reason (along with the SCOTUS) for the worst President in my condiderable lifetime.

However, Nader was right then and he is right now. You just didn't want to see it in 2000.
He who hath two ears............

[kentuck]

6. I hated those Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush.

More of them voted for Bush than voted for Nader. They don't get off the hook.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Nader equated a person who didn't believe in global warming with

the most well-known global-warming activist in the world.

[FLPanhandle]

9. As a Floridian, Nader is dead to me

And I reserve a little hate just for him.