I hate to break it to you, but Ralph Nader has a greater political legacy than most American presidents. And while he might not have gotten many votes in the last election, he is clearly more important than any libertarian has ever been. Or, for that matter, than 95% of congressmen or senators...

You might not like him, but it's foolish to act like he is not a major player. Just because the electoral system is rigged similarly to the Russian system, does not mean that his running is of no importance.

Nader's campaign is important only to him. It is all about him and his giant, hungry ego. As for the media, they just chatter to fill up air time. They are as easy to ignore as Ralph.

It's not that hard. Nader takes votes away from the Democrats, while a libertarian candidate would take votes away from the Republicans. So which does the SCLM promote?

Joe M. is right; Nader has an enormous political legacy -- as the single individual most responsible for climate change, or at least for the failure to address it. He bears considerable personal responsibility not only for effectively spiking the issue for Gore in 2000 (his real impact on that election), but also for moving the American environmental movement from its early global social change approach ("we're all passengers together on Spaceship Earth") to one based on tort law and thus local effects, which was utterly unsuitable to dealing with what we now recognize as the most important issue.

The left loves to remind everyone that George W. Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 and that the election was "stolen". Ralph Nader was a big player in that event, taking thousands of votes from al-Gore in a state where Bush won by less than a thousand. That is why his entrance makes news. The Libertarian candidate (who was the Libertarian candidate?) did not have such a dramatic impact.

As to your question of who gives an asterisk, the media does. The media reports what the media cares about.

Does any of this seem odd or out of character for the media? I don't think so.

Thank you for noticing that Nader isn't news. The media, apparently, is incapable of discerning that Nader can't possibly impact a campaign that is completely fueled by that je ne sais quoi the absence of which Nader traded on back in 2000 when his candidacy did make a difference. Am optimistic, though, that the media will not notice him again this year.

Thank you for noticing that Nader isn't news. The media, apparently, is incapable of discerning that Nader can't possibly impact a campaign that is completely fueled by that je ne sais quoi the absence of which Nader traded on back in 2000 when his candidacy did make a difference. Am optimistic, though, that the media will not notice him again this year.

The real sad thing is that the true Green Party candidate for this race isn't getting more attention. If Hillary wins, Cynthia McKinney would be the most viable African American candidate in the race. If people aren't aware of her, they may end up voting Democrat because of the lack of alternatives. If Obama wins, women need to be aware that they can still vote their gender. If either wins, black women need to know that they don't need to make the call that the media has assinged them for the primaries.

I somewhat feel that people who make their voting decisions primarily based on these factors really deserve to be McKinney voters, which makes her candidacy the most awesome thing about this race since the decent Republicans left.