Yes, Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

[MH1]

359. Nope, Nader LIED to naive supporters like I was. "Not a dime's worth of difference", remember?

By election time I realized that Nader was more about Nader than moving progressive values forward and/or obstructing the right wing. In fact I had discussions with radical Nader supporters who said it would be ok if things got really bad for people in this country because sometimes that is what it takes to start a revolution. Really, that's what these folks were going for. They never expected to win, just wanted to increase the support of their party, WHATEVER THE COST TO ACTUAL PEOPLE.

Yes, the Democratic Party is flawed, and some Democratic candidates are DEEPLY flawed, and in some cases should even be opposed, particularly if there is a viable third party candidate who can win (ahem, Vermont). That latter situation is not likely to happen for the presidential race any time soon.

That said, anyone who truly thinks there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, and supports intentionally undermining the Democratic presidential candidate, does not belong posting at DU.

This is why many of us despise Nader - not because he "bucks the system." Nope, in 2000 he played that system for his own ends, rather than to help the country.

What Nader and other radicals fail to realize is a) radical change hurts actual people (maybe some of whom you consider "scum" and don't give a shit about, but also real people who matter - to most of us); b) in some cases the "win" is stopping the evil of the right wing. For example, 9/11 and the follow-on wars would probably not have happened if Gore had become president, the Bush tax cuts and fellating the supply-siders would not have happened during Gore's term, and we would have made more progress on climate change and alternative energy. For just a few. Take away the massive expenses and revenue loss of those things and even if an economic crash had occurred - and I don't argue that at least a downturn would have happened - there would have been more money for food stamps, school lunches, and unemployment benefits, and fewer wounded veterans to be abused by the VA's incompetence and/or lack of funding. Again, just naming a few. The list is endless. And yes, there would have been stuff to grit our teeth about too. But in hindsight, doesn't that all pale next to 9/11, the wars, and all the other destruction brought on by BushCo?

Yeah, "Nader bucks the system and they hate him for that" is a bit too simplistic. Nader's approach to "bucking the system" HURTS PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO BE HURT. And he's too much of an egotistical sot to see it. That's why we hate him.