> Wall Street Journal - December 19, 2003
>
> For all the gloominess Democrats may harbor about Howard Dean's
> chances in the general election, here's a bit of good news: Ralph
> Nader, whose third-party candidacy cost Al Gore the presidency in
> 2000, seems unlikely to mount a run against the former Vermont governor.
>
> Mr. Nader says he will decide in the next few weeks whether to run.
> But in the meantime, his praise of Mr. Dean undercuts any rationale
> for another independent candidacy.
My reasons for hoping Nader doesn't run are sort of complex. Personally, if he did run, I expect his impact to be negligible. I don't think his campaign ruined the 2000 election (we all know there were factors far stronger than the Greens, especially in Florida), and I doubt that after _that_ debacle, Nader would be able to muster half of the support he had then. So on that point, I'm not worried about his impact.
But if Nader does run, it'll create any number of problems. If the Democrats lose, a second Nader candidacy would offer them a brand new excuse for failure. It'd enable the DLC to consolidate even more of a hold on the party, and I suspect, contribute to a greater demoralization of the party.
And I still have enough espect for Nader to hope that he doesn't run this time because, given the likelihood of even smaller numbers for the Greens, such a campaign couldn't be seen as anything _but_ a vanity project. In 2000, such a campaign made a real statement, had a real effect on the Democrats (look at the Dean campaign), had a chance to reach that fabled 5% of the popular vote. In 2004... well, it just doesn't seem as though any of those could happen. And I'd rather not lose the respect I have for the man.