Ah Papananook, I agree with you completely when it comes to Gore! And actually, if you read the article you will notice Hilary and Obama's comments were both included. I chose to include Obama's but not Hillary's.

Hilary, with a typical lack of insight, says that Nader is bad for democracy because he spoiled the election for Gore. On the other hand, Obama criticized Nader's understanding of politics (accurately in my opinion) and also pointed out that Nader's candidacy did not further his stated aims.

Gore was not elected because he was supported by an appeasement-minded DNC which was affraid to take a stand on any values. Gore was undone by the Democratic Party's willingness to compromis...

Ah Papananook, I agree with you completely when it comes to Gore! And actually, if you read the article you will notice Hilary and Obama's comments were both included. I chose to include Obama's but not Hillary's.

Hilary, with a typical lack of insight, says that Nader is bad for democracy because he spoiled the election for Gore. On the other hand, Obama criticized Nader's understanding of politics (accurately in my opinion) and also pointed out that Nader's candidacy did not further his stated aims.

Gore was not elected because he was supported by an appeasement-minded DNC which was affraid to take a stand on any values. Gore was undone by the Democratic Party's willingness to compromise on principles in order to maintain some of their own political power. The party took an idealistic leader and made him into a boring and confusing caricature of a politician. I like Gore much better now that he is out of the party.

On the other hand, my dislike Nader predates 2000. I believe that Nader campaigns not for values, but because he seeks the adulation of his followers. He seeks the moral superiority of a gadfly without accepting the responsibility of trying to actually contribute to our society.

And I will make the case for this condemnation next:

My argument that Nader is clueless and egomaniacal, as asserted in the title, is three fold: First, considering his pattern of consumer advocacy. Second, considering his pattern of political candidacy. Third, considering his analysis of politics.

1. Advocacy

As a consumer advocate he makes two great leaps which I find very dubious. Firstly, he advocates the safety of privileged consumers even if such improvements make the majority of Americans into second-class citizens. Secondly, he is willing to take positions without learning all the facts if he feels that they will gain media attention for himself.

I can think of no better example of this than on the question of irradiated food. Irrad...

My argument that Nader is clueless and egomaniacal, as asserted in the title, is three fold: First, considering his pattern of consumer advocacy. Second, considering his pattern of political candidacy. Third, considering his analysis of politics.

1. Advocacy

As a consumer advocate he makes two great leaps which I find very dubious. Firstly, he advocates the safety of privileged consumers even if such improvements make the majority of Americans into second-class citizens. Secondly, he is willing to take positions without learning all the facts if he feels that they will gain media attention for himself.

I can think of no better example of this than on the question of irradiated food. Irradiation of food allows for many fresh fruits and vegetables to be preserved much longer without refrigeration.

This technology would make it possible to allow fresh produce to be distributed to areas in crisis, providing significant improvement in nutrient value of food aid, and significantly reducing the incidence of nutrition-related diseases in areas suffering from famine.

Nader automatically condemned this practice, and organized protests and activism to see that the technology was all but abandoned.

He did this on the basis of his belief that irradiation somehow destroyed the vitamins in the food, and on the belief that somehow the radiation persisted in the food. There is no scientific evidence of this whatsoever. Scientific consensus on the subject is clear. Objections amount to little more than superstition.

Nader, however, was not interested in whether his position was right or wrong, or who was hurt by his advocacy. He simply cared about his ability to grab the spotlight and shine it on himself.

2. Candidacy

Nader has repeatedly run for president as the Green Party Candidate. In 2000 he succeeded in energizing the Green party, but he also crossed a line and started alienating Democrats, who should ideologically be sympathetic with the Greens.

This schism between ideological allies became so acrimonious that it provoked a major backlash against the Green Party that continues today.

Yet Nader persists in making himself the public face of the Green Party. Why not hand over the reigns to someone newer and younger who can forge the connections and coalitions needed in a true multi-party system? Instead, at the expense of marginalizing his political movement, he insists on remaining in...

2. Candidacy

Nader has repeatedly run for president as the Green Party Candidate. In 2000 he succeeded in energizing the Green party, but he also crossed a line and started alienating Democrats, who should ideologically be sympathetic with the Greens.

This schism between ideological allies became so acrimonious that it provoked a major backlash against the Green Party that continues today.

Yet Nader persists in making himself the public face of the Green Party. Why not hand over the reigns to someone newer and younger who can forge the connections and coalitions needed in a true multi-party system? Instead, at the expense of marginalizing his political movement, he insists on remaining in the limelight, even as it drags everyone down with him.

3. Analysis

Finally, even if he is honest, he certainly doesn't have a clue what he is talking about! He said Gore and Bush were the same. As Obama pointed out, that was dead wrong.

He compares his situation to segregation, and by extension compares himself to Martin Luther King. This is not only insulting, but it totally over-rates the significance of his cause. It's like comparing Guantanamo Bay to the Holocaust, when it is really much more like the Gulag.

This is egotism, and it discredits him and the causes he supports. I'm tired of my legitimate politics being discredited by passing similarity with the illegitimate antics of clowns like Nader.