Prepare for another round of ridiculous politics.

The wide field of Democrats that had jumped in as Presidential candidates for 2004 looked as though it was going to be whittled down to a respectable race.

Further lessened just last week following the primary elections across the country. Hopes were knocked out for Dean, Sharpton, and others.

And we were left with two, basically, that have a viable run against Bush.

Senator of Massachusetts, John Kerry and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, stood as the sole survivors of a slew of candidates.

As of Sunday, Ralph Nader joins the legion of candidates that seek or sought the White House.

So, why now?

Why would Nader join the race at this point if ever after last election?

Nader's reasoning was stated, in the numerous interviews he has given, that he is a necessary option. He is running now as an Independent rather than continuing as the candidate of the failed Green party run of 2000.

Did he think that voters would forget?

During the last election his mission was the same, to offer a third option to voters beside the traditional Democratic and Republican candidates.

This may be a valid concern, that parties have become stale, and stuck in their old ways.

The public, or a significant portion of them, have become disinterested.

However, the American people made it clear with their vote that they were not that interested in adding a third party when Nader did not receive the necessary percentage to make the Green party national and allowed to receive campaign funding.

Nader still claims that there is not a difference between the candidates. This statement is just as uninformed as when he first made it in 2000.

The political views of Bush and Gore were not similar at all if you look past the sound bites.

Bush is extremely conservative on all issues and Gore was liberal though they both watered down their agendas because political analysts said voters wanted middle ground.

But that is old news, despite the claims by Democrats that the White House was stolen.

Bitterness remains and fueled the inordinate number of candidates that sought the presidency as of last month.

Citizens, not just Democrats, are angry about the administration.

Nader's call for change is nothing new, drowned among the other shouts.

His bid seems worthless in all of the talk of "electabilty."

Voters seemingly abandoned Dean after he seemed to be far ahead of all of the other candidates, based on that issue, according to analysts.

Nader could learn from that example and see that if voters were afraid of Dean not being electable, then why would they invest in a candidate that is even farther from center?

The last election proved, to those willing to listen, that a vote does count, as the end result was so close.

Though this is a very different election with a different sentiment, Nader seems to not only not have learned from the past but is willing to make the same mistakes.

This election, voters don't seem to be calling for a choice beyond those given, just an administration change, according to the more liberal sources.

The claims that Nader is making do not go unfounded. Corporate control is all too prevalent in politics and other public services.

Contracts with major private companies for government work, campaign finances and other scandals have made that known to the voter.

The Presidency does not seem to be the right venue for airing these grievances from Nader. A grassroots watchdog group fits him just fine.

The Presidency and political offices in general seem to be the aim of personal crusades. It is a public office that is supposed to be representative of the population.

But all these candidates and their apparent deafness to public sentiment makes a mockery of the presidency.

Late-night talk-show appearances and celebrity candidates make politics seem more like reality television than a public service.

Nader is acting like he is apart from that when he has jumped right into it, seeking an additional 15 minutes in the spotlight regardless of whether it necessary.

Greater good outweighs the individual in politics and public service.

Kate Saunders can be reached at

comments powered by Disqus