The Green party had its own candidate.
It is not true that the Democratic party "hated" Nader. The fact is that long before the election, the Democratic nominee actually had a meeting with Nader and Nader came out saying very good things about Kerry. Nader then spoke of running because he could then attack Bush in ways that could not be done by Kerry without insuring a Bush landslide. This argument NEVER made sense. If Nader, as an activist, wanted to attack Bush he could JUST as effectively while NOT running. By running, he risked helping Bush narrowly win states - as happened in NH and maybe FL in 2000 - if the Nader votes would have gone to Gore.
As to the Green party, the fact is that the Democratic nominee had a stronger, longer resume as an environmentalist than almost any candidate of a national party (including Al Gore, who was great on climate change and not so good on other issues.). Yet, unlike some of the NY state third parties, there was no thought on their part of "giving their line" to Kerry to throw their weight behind someone who - while not perfect - was excellent on their key issue.
As it was, maybe because of what people learned in 2000, neither the Green candidate or Nader really changed even one state.
However, the Democratic challenges to Nader's petitions were completely legal. The problem - as has happened to others including both Democrats and Republicans - is that in many states, Nader paid people to get signatures - and some paid people did a very sloppy job leading to many names being struck off as not legitimate. Whether you think ballot criteria should exist or not - the fact is that they do. It was completely reasonable to challenge when the rules were not met. (In fact, in many states, it was the state - not the Democrats - who refused to put Nader on the ballot.)
= new reply since forum marked as read