Now that Ralph Nader has announced yet another independent bid for President, Democrats are left with mixed feelings about the guy. Liberal pundits are again bringing up the 2000 election where, it is alleged, Nader's presence on the Florida ballot resulted in the election of George W. Bush. And we get to hear again the counter-arguments from Nader supporters that it was the quarter-million Florida Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 that cost Gore the election, or that if Gore had just won his own state of Tennessee or the Clinton's home state of Arkansas, he would have been President.I was grateful that Senator Obama did at least recognize the Nader's contributions to our nation in his remarks yesterday. There is no question he's had a huge impact on our nation for good. His supporters have pointed out how his place in history would be different if his name was attached to everything he's been responsible for. Think if car airbags were called Nader bags, or if nutrition information on cereal boxes were called Nader notices, or if the Consumer Protection Agency was called the Nader Agency.
Personally, I think on balance, the man may be a gadfly, but he's a positive gadfly. In a system where Democrats at the state and national level must take campaign contributions from special interests or stand no chance of winning elections, having that prophet in the wilderness out there, constantly reminding us that government must be of, by and for the people, not the rich and powerful, is a good thing. Nader's presence in the race will help keep the Democratic nominee a little less likely to cave to the special interests.
He probably won't have much of an impact, but I'm glad he's still out there standing up for the little guy.
