Nader.

[Andrew]

I think Nader ran because he disagreed with both major parties on a number of issues--specifically Iraq.  I think that he sincerely believes that it doesn't make any difference at all which major party is in power.

I think that it was poor strategy to run as an independent, but as he wasn't expecting to win anyway, it probably made sense.  He's never been a member of the Green Party.

I think it was reasonable of the Democrats to challenge his signatures and such as he fought for ballot access.  That's politics; if his signatures weren't legitimate, it's okay to challenge.

However, I remember an incident in Oregon where Nader was trying to get x number of signatures at one event, as an easier way of getting on the ballot.  Reports were that Democrats turned out in high numbers, swelling the attendance so that not everybody who wanted to attend could get in, with no intention of signing petitions.  They were unable to get enough signatures.  If those reports were correct, I think that's dirty pool.

Even though challenging Nader's signatures was legitimate, I still think it's shameful the way both major parties work to make ballot access more difficult for minor parties.  They are putting party ahead of country.  I also think it's ridiculous that when people across the country step into the voting booth to choose a President, not everyone has the same choices.  What sense does that make?

And I have never understood why it's supposed to be Ralph Nader's job to get the Democratic nominee elected.