Nader

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

I'll confess, I don't remember much about elections prior to 2004, mostly because I was too young to vote, therefore, I delayed my caring. However, this article does a great job of summing up (or providing an introductory summary to?) the accomplishments of Ralph Nader. However, it faults him for running for president - "ruining" Gore's chances in 2000. This is one more example of how the two-party system consistently fails the American people. Anyone should have the chance to run for president - and neither they, nor the American people, should have to play a game of prisoner's dilemma by attempting to predict who will run, who will win what votes, will it hurt "our side", etc. As the campaign process has unfolded thus far, does anyone honestly think we can predict this stuff anymore?

"Mr. Nader has every right to run for president. But given the issues he cares about, it’s all too clear why Republicans are delighted that he’s making the race, and there is not a Democratic smile in sight."

Fair enough, Herbert - but I can't helping hoping that more people do throw their hats into the ring - for both parties. C'mon Ron Paul. C'mon Nader. I honestly don't care about specific party politics, and I don't really think most Americans do. (The only people that seem to focus their arguments on what's best for the party etc. are party leaders, not everyday Americans.) Perhaps a preponderance of candidates will spread out the vote more - maybe proving that Americans cannot be classified into two groups - us v. them. I don't really think that would be a bad thing.