NEW YORK -- Among the many consequences of the 2000 presidential election was the elevation of Ralph Nader to pariah status among Democrats. The lifelong consumer advocate earned this honor by drawing some 97,000 votes in decisive Florida, which Al Gore lost by a mere 537 ballots to George W. Bush.
Back in February, Nader announced that he would make yet another run at the White House. Here in June, now that the Democrats finally have a nominee, Nader's turning up again. An interview with Denver's Rocky Mountain News has gained him outsize coverage, due to the unfortunate way he chose to question what he saw as Barack Obama's neglect of inner-city issues in his presidential campaign, asking if the presumptive Democratic nominee wants to "talk white."
Nader's comment has been pulled out of context in most news accounts. But one wonders whether it represents a rhetorical misstep or a calculated effort to separate Obama from certain African-American constituencies.
More to the point, do Obama and the Democrats have something to fear from Nader in '08? And should John McCain and the Republicans be worried about the Libertarian presidential run of former GOP Congressman Bob Barr?
This year's election would have to be, as was 2000's, mighty close for either Nader or Barr to be a difference-maker. Close presidential elections became the norm in the Bush years; will that trend continue this year? There are strong indications, from special congressional elections held in recent months to historic percentages of Americans saying the country is on the wrong track, that this could be a big year for the Democrats.
But don't listen to anyone who tells you how the fall election will turn out at the beginning of summer. Any number of things could happen between now and then that could completely change the playing ground of the presidential campaign and, at the very least, turn this race into a squeaker.
And if Obama and McCain are neck-and-neck heading into November's voting, it's easy to envision a scenario where Barr could end up as the GOP's Nader. The winner-take-all formula for presidential races means that even the few percentage points that a third-party or independent candidate might pull from his major-party counterpart could make a disproportionate difference. Nader seems less likely to upend Obama this way, if 2004 is an indication -- in that last election, Nader's votes were well down from 2000, owing to Democratic efforts to keep him off state ballots and some Democratically inclined voters no doubt having decided that it was more important to back John Kerry against President Bush.
The GOP is already working to challenge Barr's inclusion on state ballots. But making a statement by voting for Barr may have added appeal for Republican voters in a year in which one hears reports of disillusionment among the party's leaders and its rank and file alike. This risk for McCain is compounded by the disaffection that many hard-line conservatives are said to harbor for the presumptive nominee.
Meanwhile, for those Americans whose only stake in the election is that of concerned citizens, it may be right to question the spoiler label put on Nader and others like him. No nominee, be he Republican, Democrat or Mugwump, is due the vote of any American. A fair argument could be made that, in 2000, a lot of those Nader voters would not have shown up at the polls if not to cast a ballot for their candidate.
And in an election year that's shaping up to be all about capturing the centre, third-party and independent candidates ensure that voices on the right and the left -- voices that might otherwise be marginalized -- have a chance to be heard.
-- Hearst Newspapers
PREVIOUS
