During the Democratic National Convention, Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich's Delegates had their placards removed which said "Peace Candidate". The Democratic National Committee would not allow those placards to be held up on the Democratic National Convention Floor. Not only was this a violation of expression of Free speech and Un-Democratic, but recent polls show that more than half of the American public is against the war in Iraq. In short the Democratic party wants to field a candidate who is for war. Both Bush and Kerry think continued war can solve the conflict.

There are millions of unaffiliated voters that are registered to vote but don't belong to either the Democrat or Republican Party. Ralph Nader is trying to get those candidates to vote for him but many who voted for Nader in 2000 are too scared to vote for him again in 2004, the possibility of having to endure four more years under the current Bush administration, they can't even contemplate. Nader says he is running "to take our democracy back from the corporate interests that dominate both parties."

Earlier this year, along with several third parties and former candidates, he sued the Federal Election Commission for not acting against the two-party controlled partisan Commission on Presidential Debates. He's running, as all third-party and Independent candidates do, to mobilize citizens behind an issues agenda - a fundamental solution revolution - for the American people that neither major party will discuss or adopt. In many countries there are several political parties all vying for the leadership of their nation yet in the United States there are only two parties and attempts at forming a third party have been met with lots of resistance from both the Democrat and Republican parties.

In fact Nader said the Democratic party in specific has blocked efforts by him to get on the ballot in many states. The Democrats says that the Nader camp has used Republican money and phony names on ballots to get on the Presidential ballot in some states. Nader denies this and say he has called John Kerry 25 times to speak to him about it but Kerry won't return his calld to talk to him about the tactics Nader claims that Democrats are using to illegally keep him off the ballots in some states. Many voters hate the idea of voting for a lesser of two evils in terms of Bush and Kerry. Ralph Nader spoke to a group in Harlem, New York and he repeated a quote that has been part of his philosophy since he heard it. The slogan goes "I'd rather vote for someone who I believe in that loses instead of someone I don't believe in that wins." Even mainstream media outets like Business Week Magazine are agreeing with Nader that corporations have too much power and both parties are too beholden to corporations. Corporations are not living beings, they don't eat, get sick, or have children and more importantly they are not people. Bush and Kerry have set records in terms of spending on ads this year, each surpassing 40 million. So as you can see its hard for a third party candidate to make a run for the Oval Office unless he's a multi-millionaire like Ross Perot. So does Presidential Hopeful Ralph Nader have a chance at winning? Probably not this year. But does Ralph Nader's represent the interest and political beliefs of the majority of Americans who are ordinary working people? He quite possibly may. 

With the 2004 election less than 2 weeks away, Ralph Nader took a time out, to play a little question and answer on pop culture and politics, with Bruce Banter of Playahata.com. 

Ralph Nader - No Strings Attached

Playahata.com: Sean "P-Diddy" Combs recently launched Citizen Change which is registering voters, and another group called the Hip-hop Summit Action Network led by Russell Simmons and a few others is doing the same thing. Neither group is endorsing any candidates yet. Would you be open to trying to see if they can get a million young people to vote for you? Do you think they can?

Ralph Nader: Of course. Getting youth active is one of the goals of this campaign. This is a long-term struggle that does not end on November 2. Therefore, we are looking for youth who can be future leaders of the struggle to take the United States from the grip of corporate control and return it to a government of, by and for the people.

Playahata.com: We were surprised that you spoke to The Source Magazine on Hip-hop and popular culture topics. Rolling Stone Magazine will probably come at you next, but unless you kill somebody most other youth oriented magazines will probably ignore you. Unfortunately "Pop Culture" (movies, music, labeling of brand names, etc) is America's biggest export commodity, so it is something that politicians have to be in touch with to some degree. You admit you don't like rap but acknowledge its power, but you don't discuss with people what you like. Do you feel that opening up [about personal preferences] socially is a form of candidate pandering?

Nader: Music and art have always been important parts of movements for social justice. They communicate with people in ways that a political speech or policy paper can't. So, it is not necessarily pandering. It is only pandering of politicians to pretend to be fans of hip-hop or other forms of music when they aren't in order to attract voters. Politicians need to be authentic, it is the inauthentic who pander.

Playahata.com: You recently told MTV, "You're lucky on TV news if you get an 8 second sound bite. With Jay Leno or Dave Letterman you can actually talk for a minute at a time but that's the only outlet we have [for] serious, enormous global issues that affect the future of the world and this country, and if you want to make a point for more than a few seconds, you have to go on joke shows and not only that, but you have to make sure your semi serious - talk produces laughs at a frequent rate. Its grotesque!" - I agree, but recently you appeared on Politically Incorrect with Bill Mahrer - does that indicate a shift in your philosophy on media?

Nader: I've appeared on Saturday Night Live, Comedy Central, Jay Leno, David Letterman and, as you note, Bill Maher so I recognize the importance of communicating with Americans through comedy and non-news outlets. Many Americans are turned off to politics and one of the goals of this campaign is to turn them onto politics because if they don't turn onto politics, corrupt politics will surely turn on them. We need to create a mass citizen movement in order to make this truly a government of, by and for the people so we need to reach out to people in a wide array of venues.

Playahata.com: Many people are still under the impression that you cost Al Gore the election in 2000?

Nader: No. Al Gore won the election in 2000. George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election. No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned. To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties. The Constitution does not mention parties. This country had a rich history of third parties. George W. Bush's recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election. The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election. Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election. A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close to Call). Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates. Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign. And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida. Moreover, a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph's votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph. In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph's voters would NOT have voted for Gore. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin. If one accepts the flawed logic that suggests Ralph 'cost' Gore two states (New Hampshire and Florida), then it would also follow that Buchanan 'cost' Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico) in 2000.CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting

Playahata.com: Film maker, Michael Moore and Independent Talk show personality Bill Mahrer say they agree with you but don't want you to run. I know a lot of people who voted for you in 2000 but this year many of them think "Ralph should chill this year". What's your response to those who say that?

Nader: Someone has to be in the race to keep the two parties responsive and make sure that the issues the Washington insiders don't want to address get raised all the way to election day, since most Americans only start to pay attention to the election after Labor Day.

They told African Americans and women "to wait" when they wanted the right to vote. They told students during Viet Nam, and they told the civil rights and labor leaders that it wasn't "the right time." It's never the time for pioneers and trailblazers. The stakes are always high. (Think of Soviet-US nuclear missiles in 1984.) According to both parties who want to avoid challenges, there is no such thing as a suitable year, ever. But the quest for justice doesn't take a holiday. If you think this country and world are so well spoken for that more people and wider agendas in the electoral arena are not needed, then don't vote for Ralph. It's that simple.

All the Democratic voters can vote for the Democrats. All the Republican voters for the Republicans. And still there would be 100 million plus nonvoting people to approach for their votes. If you think we could all be doing a better job at making a more perfect union, then keep an open mind and visit the rest of this [http://www.votenader.com] site. And don't just let election-day dynamics affect your judgment about all the good and more explicit popular mandates that can come from pre-election day and post-election day dynamics, when more people expand their political and civic energies.

Playahata.com: Last question, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that you support Reparations but even some popular African-American personalities have lampooned the idea because they say African-Americans will never get them. Dave Chapelle of Comedy Central is one for example, but I am sure he is not alone in this thinking and its obvious your ideas are being received further than you know. Do you consider watering down your ideas because you think people are not ready for some truths?

Nader: No. People need to hear the truth. This is not about cash to individuals. Sometimes it has to be said in ways they can understand it, but the truth should not be watered down. Initially, every paradigm shift toward justice has been met with the claim "you'll never get it." But, in the end, justice can win out if people are persistent in demanding it. Reparations from corporations who profited from slavery is obviously just, and if the demand continues, it will succeed as through a fund to improve the lives of African American children.

For More on the Debate on the Nader Candidacy Click Here. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/26/144233