Looks like Nader is intent on making the Democrats sweat this election. Ignoring Democrats� Pleas, Nader Announces Run for White House: Governor Bill Richardson says it best, "It's his personal vanity because he has no movement,' Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico complained on 'Fox News Sunday' before Mr. Nader's announcement. 'Nobody's backing him, the Greens aren't backing him, his friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself.'" You can bet the Republicans just creamed their jeans at this announcement. Not only does Nader's candidacy compete with anti-Bush votes in competitive states, but his announcement focuses the press away from Bush and his failures and toward the race between the Dems and Nader.

Unfortunately, Nader refuses to act in accordance with the understanding that 2004 is much different than 2000. In 2000, our country had just witnessed one of the most prosperous years of growth in a long while. Unbeknownst to many of us, Nader was absolutely correct about corporate excesses and greed. Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, and the pets.com sock puppet were considered success stories before the 2000 election. Little did the public know that the traditional corporations would eviscerate the retirement savings of its workers, and break many laws doing it. At the time, the Internet, by then experiencing huge growth, still seemed to provide limitless opportunities. Venture capital flowed freely and if you had a semblance of an idea, a Business Model, you could get rich. I still remember attending a party in San Francisco in October of 2000 with my buddy Rob. Rob worked in the "dot-com" industry, and this was a "dot-com" party. As a first-year law student, accruing debt at a rate just slightly slower than the national debt, I was struck by the fact that I was at a party with people younger than me, and they all had more money that I'd see in a long while. Walking between conversations, I would overhear kids talking about "V.C." and "B.M.s" (venture capital and business models). These wankers talked the talk, and got rich doing it. The year 2000 was the culimation of a reckless era of corporations spending freely to accumulate bullshit companies. And, this corporate greed definitely spilled-over into politics. These companies were spending large amounts of money in Washington to get what they needed from the politicians.

What's changed between 2000 and 2004? Well, the Internet boom is over, and we've already faced a recession. Jobs are scarce and any economic growth that occurs appears to be geared toward the stock market. The heads of Enron have faced Federal prosecutions and some are actually serving time. The CEO of Tyco faces intense scrutiny for his lavish spending and squandering of corporate resources. We've been attacked and attacked in return. In addition to rooting out the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we have also taken many innocent lives. Of course, there is Iraq. We've won that war, we think, but what did we win? We didn't find any WMDs. Will we have a quagmire that we will leave unfinished and that will become a magnet for Islamic revolutionaries? In the process we have killed many Iraqis, and lost many of our soldiers. We also are now on the brink of another culture war. Bolstered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Lawrence, which held that Texas's sodomy statute, as applied to homosexuals, was unconstitutional, and bolstered by the Massachusetts supreme court's ruling that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, Bush and his conservatives will seek to make gay marriage a smokescreen to obscure the loss of jobs, mismanagement of the economy, and failures in Iraq.

What's the overriding goal for the Democrats and Nader? To beat Bush. What is at stake in this election? First, would be the right to appoint supreme court justices that will maintain, if not further, the rights of gays (it's widely rumored that Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens might be ready to retire). We cannot have another Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist. Second, the economy and jobs. Bush's tax cut, if made permanent, will create lasting repurcussions that my children will feel. These deficits will hamper any fiscal flexibility that future generations may need. Nader is concerned about Bush's connections to corporate america and the subsequent corporate welfare, if Bush wins again, what does Nader think will happen? With a Democrat, things may not be the way he likes it, but they will be different. Third, we need to restore America's credibility in the world again. With the democratic nominee, we can at least start over, but with a Bush in the White House, we risk a complete squandering of any good will that remains.

Can Nader win the election? Absolutely not. He does not have the organization nor resources to win. Is this an indictment upon our electoral process. Absolutely, 100 percent, yes. Is Nader within his rights to challenge Bush? Of course he is. However, because he knows he can't win (and those who would say to the contrary, I say you're a damn fool), and because he seeks only to make a point about the electoral process, I believe that Gov. Bill Richardson is correct in saying that Nader's campaign is for nothing more than personal vanity. And I think, and hopfully others will think this, that there is just too much at stake to throw a vote to vanity. Those who would argue that Nader's campaign won't have an impact, I say carefully re-examine your statement. Those who would vote for Nader would almost never vote for Bush. By creating a Democrat alternate, you split the anti-Bush vote and maximize Bush's chances of winning. To make a point while losing your cause in the ultimate exercise in vanity.