One more time for Ralph Nader...

In perhaps the least surprising announcement of the 2008 campaign season, Ralph Nader told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning that he’s launching a campaign for president -- his fifth quest for the White House in as many presidential elections.

His statement came as a shock to no one: He hinted in early January, and implied in late January, that he would run.

(UPDATE: An update on reactions from around the political spectrum appears below.)

In 2004, campaigning as an independent, the longtime consumer activist got 465,650 votes (out of a total of more than 122 million). Four years before that, as the candidate of the Green Party, he was more successful, capturing 2.8 million of the 105 million votes cast. (He also ran a limited campaign as the Greens' candidate in 1996 and as a write-in candidate in 1992.)

His 2000 campaign earned him the ire of many Democrats, who...

blamed him for costing Al Gore the White House: Had Nader not been in the race, their argument goes, most of the 97,488 votes he won in Florida would have gone to Gore.

Instead, the race in Florida was far too close to call, and the recount ended up in the Supreme Court -– which ruled on the side of Gov. George W. Bush. The court's 5-4 decision stopped the recount with Bush ahead by 537 votes, and Florida’s 25 electoral votes put him in the Oval Office.

Not surprisingly, Nader -- who turns 74 on Wednesday and is the oldest candidate of any party in the presidential race -- doesn’t agree that he was responsible for Bush’s win in 2000.

“Mr. Gore ... would tell you if he won Tennessee, anything else being equal, he would've been president. It's his home state,” he told Tim Russert. “If he won Arkansas, everything else being equal, he would've been president. The mayor of Miami sabotaged the Democrats because of a grudge, didn't bring thousands of votes out. Quarter of a million Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. There is all kinds of thievery in Florida. So why do they blame the Greens?”

(UPDATE: Just as unsurprising as Nader’s announcement was the reaction to it.

“Well, there you go,” Barack Obama, campaigning in Ohio, told reporters, including The Times' Mark Z. Barabak. “He does it every four years. His view is, unless it’s Ralph Nader, that you’re not tough enough on any of these issues. He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about.”

Obama, who worked for three months as a community organizer for a Nader-related group in New York after graduating from college, did praise Nader "for the outstanding work he did as a consumer advocate for many years.”

On Saturday he had even described Nader as "historically a singular figure in American politics ... a heroic figure." But, the Illinois senator continued Sunday, "his function as a perennial presidential candidate I don't think is helping put food on the table or deal with the issues that are so important to lot of working families.”

Hillary Clinton, flying from Washington to Rhode Island, told The Times' Michael Finnegan: "Obviously it's not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is, but it's a free country."

On the Sunday talk show circuit, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- who's still in the hunt for the Republican presidential nomination -- told CNN’s “Late Edition” that he was pleased: “I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans. So naturally Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in.”

“Fox News Sunday” heard from four governors who were in Washington for the National Governors Association meeting.

-- Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican: “I don't think any one party has a monopoly on who should be able to run or why they should be able to run.”

-- Virginia's Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat: “Well, I think it's kind of declining interest to the American public what Ralph says he's going to do.”

-- South Carolina's  Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican: “I suspect that Ralph suspects that it helps him more than anybody else.”

-- New Jersey's Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat: “I think the more interesting question is whether [New York Mayor] Michael Bloomberg gets in.”

Finally, Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant said: “It’s understandable why Obama considers Nader a ‘singular’ and ‘heroic’ figure: Both are left-wing partisans prone to putting rhetoric before reality.")

-- Leslie Hoffecker

Comments

[Keith]

Wow, the Democratic Party is really in disarray and experiencing a lot of infighting! What will happen when Hillary loses the popular vote but the superdelegates make her the nominee in spite of the will of the people who support her own party? Hold on, it's gonna be a wild ride. At least now the Obama Democrats who are soon to be disenfranchised by Democrat Party's machine of superdelegates who will hand the nomination to Hillary will have an option of someone to vote for, as opposed to just not voting at all.

[camis]

Nader, Nader, Nader !

I'm beginning to think he works for the Republican Party and is therefore entering the race once again to split the Demoractic vote and thus weaken it - which in turn will strengthen the chance of McCain winning. Hey man, time to get your ego out of the way and HELP THE COUNTRY.

[Figgins]

Nader's entry in the presidential race will have less impact this year than in almost any previous election year. In 2000 (his most influential race) he siphoned off young Democrats unsatisfied with a continuation of Clinton politics.

Now that Obama has invigorated the youth in the Democratic Party, they (the young voters) have no reason to vote for Nader. If the Super delegates opt for Hiilary over the voice of the people, then the Democratic nominee has much to worry about.

[Robert Valiquet]

Nader can claim more than hillarys 35 years of experience.He would also be better prepared for that
crucial day one as Hillary likes to put it.I think all sincere
dems need to jump on the Nader bandwagon now.

[mariann]

The dynamics are different now and Nader's impact won't be as pronounced (hopefully). If for any other reason other than for the tactical advantage, Obama should coop the concerns Nader cites at his web site; corporate power/greed, fight lobbying influence a la John Edwards, big banks, insurance companies and Wall Street. Nader hasn't been the first notable person to remark on Obama's self-sensoring when it comes to the more difficult issues. Why the self-sensoring, because you have to get to the White House before you can start making the true changes that are in the interest of the Many, as opposed to the Few.

[Robert Valiquet]

Fresh from CNN
Michael Moore to be on Nader Ticket as VP.Nader had to make a cruel choice between D. Kucinich and Moore.
Kucinich was promissing Nader the support of the tens
of thousnds of GLBT militants. Nader finaly opted to
accept Moore's promise of a $10,000,000.00 interest free
loan to the campaign.

[Keith Henderson]

Two facts:

1) Nader is right that he should be allowed to run.

2) Democrats are right that his presence helps Republicans, hurts Democrats and will not change his status at all (namely, that he is and will remain Not President).

These truths make an excellent case for instant runoff voting.

I respect the argument that it would further complicate voting, but our current voting systems are about as simple as they could possibly be short of "write a name on a piece of paper and put it in a box". Even so they manage to confound plenty of voters each year. Maybe we can accept voter confusion as a natural part of life and adopt a system that increases democracy and incentivizes participation.

[Marks]

No more free advertising for Nader unless he's paying.
Why would the LATimes keep giving him free press even in this blog section?
He's running for President, let him use his campaign money for ads and promotions.
Anybody can run for President, but all should have to pay for their first advertising and promotional Presidential events.
Otherwise, they don't rate publication, no matter what the guy used to stand for.
Here's a FYI for Alex Conant, he's a nobody in comparison. A partisan right wing hack. Check out alexconant.com he's a shill for the actual White House page, like Bush needs his promotional efforts!
Bush with 30% polls, that's who Alex Conant promotes.
His opinions should be 70% disbelieved. His is Alex Conant spokesman for the Republican National Committee. That's the 30% truth what he claims!

[SimpleRep]

Blanche...get the Geritol, Nader's running for President...AGAIN!

[Michael Ernest]

I think Obama is worth a shot but I'd have to say Nader is more in line with my views. The question is does one vote to win or vote to have their voice heard? The Democrats are about winning obviously. Unfortunately, they don't really offer much in terms of ideals or even a moral center.

[SmokyJoe]

I supported Nader last round and agree that it should be about voting ones heart rather then voting only to win. This time though, I have to say that Ron Paul has my hearts vote. I think that he stands a lot more of a chance of being elected then Nader does and if Nader, disenfranchised Repubs and Demo's along with libertarians, greens, indies etc all put their votes where their mouth was in supporting Dr Paul we might just have a chance at sending a message and getting a guy elected both. Wishful thinking perhaps, but Nader has no chance versus Paul who could have a long shots chance with the warhorse McCain representing his party and Obama and his "see I like Change" changey change change message of nothing representing the Demo's.

[Nicole]

There is no chance that if Obama wins tuesday that the superdelegates will not get behind him. No one is stupid enough to let Hilary or whoever is more behind come nearer to the convention to still be running. Everyone realizes the importance of a unified party, including Hillary and Barack, and all the superdelegates.