Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31084)	2/23/2004 7:21:24 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793845

This new Political Trail "Blog" at the "Times" is their first attempt at getting their toes in the water. February 23, 2004 POLITICAL POINTS \| 2.23 7:45 AM Democrats Condemn Nader's Candidacy By CARL HULSE ith this week's primaries in Hawaii, Idaho and Utah failing to generate much heat, Ralph Nader stepped helpfully into the void on Sunday by disclosing on "Meet the Press" that he would again seek the presidency. (Transcript) "After careful thought and my desire to retire our supremely selected president, I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," said Mr. Nader, whose presidential announcement on the program had to wait behind a discussion by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California of whether immigrants should be allowed to seek the White House. Mr. Nader's candidacy was immediately condemned by Democrats, who blame him for Al Gore's loss and - more importantly - President Bush's victory in 2000. But Mr. Nader, in his insinuation about the Supreme Court, sought to put the blame elsewhere. So Mr. Nader is in and Democrats are put out. But it is yet to be seen how much of a factor Mr. Nader will be and there was plenty of sentiment on Sunday that he will be far less of one than he was in 2000. For one, he was running under the Green Party banner that year and could rely on that group's organization, a luxury he won't have this time. More importantly, Mr. Nader will no doubt occupy some of the anti-Washington ground already trod by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, even stepping it up several notches as he did in laying out a rationale for the potential impeachment of the president over Iraq. But while Dr. Dean had his followers and almost single-handedly shifted the tone of the party's message, Democrats have shown by their primary voting patterns that their driving motivation this year is to unseat President Bush, not score points over the scope of the influence of moneyed interests. "We are very determined, as Democrats, to take back the White House, and we're certainly hopeful that this is not an impediment," Gov. Jennifer Granholm, of Michigan, said on Fox News on Sunday. And Democrats seem more than a bit fed up with Mr. Nader, who some accused of running to satisfy his own ego. Over on CNN, political analyst William Schneider said Mr. Nader's vote totals are likely to diminish this year if he follows through on his plan, though any votes he takes away from either the Democratic candidate or Mr. Bush could prove crucial if the election turns out to be as close as some now predict it could be. But the White House is taking steps to try to prevent that from happening. News organizations were reporting on Sunday that Mr. Bush would become more aggressive this week to counter the steady Democratic attacks, beginning with a speech tonight to Republican governors in Washington for a meeting of the National Governors Association, and followed by national advertising beginning in early March. That development brought a new Democratic attack. "The Bush White House still doesn't get it," said a statement issued by Jennifer Palmieri, spokeswoman for the campaign of Senator John Edwards. "They don't have a PR problem - they have a leadership problem. An ad campaign is not going to create more jobs, make health care more affordable or make our country more secure." nytimes.com Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company