Ralph Nader is Missing a Golden Opportunity
Counterpunch points out that John Kerry will not be the anti-war candidate that part of the electorate is seeking:

July 30, 2004

Shattering Illusions
Kerry Doesn't Want Anti-War Activists
By SONALI KOLHATKAR
and JAMES INGALLS

In the first minute of his July 29 Democratic National Convention (DNC) acceptance speech, John Kerry told us that the Democratic party has "one simple purpose: to make America stronger at home and respected in the world." The Republicans have set the standard by which a US President will be judged....Regardless of who gets elected, the two parties tell us, the next president will be a "Commander-in-chief": tough on terrorism, national security and Homeland Security....According to Democrats quoted in the New York Times (July 25th 2004), this year's DNC was designed so that you "think you're looking at a Republican Convention." Kerry is reaching out to the same base that Bush is, so this election year there is hardly even the pretense of progressive values coming from the Democratic elites on the podium....

Furthermore, Kerry and the Party elite do not actually want peace activists to campaign for them, at least not as peace activists. This was demonstrated most tellingly at the DNC where not only was criticism of the war discouraged, but peace activists among the delegates were not allowed to bring literature or clothing that expressed an anti-war stance. Medea Benjamin, who advocates voting for Kerry in swing states, was thrown out of the convention hall after unfurling a banner calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq. Other activists were barred from entering with headscarves that read "Delegates for Peace" and one California delegate with a flyer entitled "No War on Iraq" was prevented from bringing it onto the floor of the convention hall....

Even within the narrow spectrum of the Democratic Party, ninety percent of delegates oppose the war in Iraq (according to a recent CBS/NY Times poll). Their views were barely reflected in the choreographed speeches of their elite "representatives." Outspoken anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich justified ignoring the divide: "we're going to unite our party to elect John Kerry and then we're going to continue the debate within the Democratic Party." (PBS Interview)....

So if the anti-warriors can't look to Kerry, who can they look to? Undoubtedly some of them are asking, WWRND? Well, let's go to http://www.votenader.org/ and click on the button, Why Ralph?, then go to the F.A.Q. page.

Why is Ralph Nader running?
To take our democracy back from the corporate interests that dominate both parties.

Ah, so Ralph continues to battle the corporations. So, he talks about getting on the 2004 ballot, and about the 2000 election in Florida, bla bla bla, and five pages later, he gets around to talking about an issue:

They [the Democrats] voted for or failed to stop the Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president.

Note that Nader's primary beef isn't with the war itself. His beef is with the fact that Bush has been granted significant power by the war resolution.

Well, if you dig into his Issues page, you can find out what he's saying about peace:

Toward a World of Peace, Justice, and Fulfillment of Human Possibilities within a Sustainable Environment
Our foreign policy must redefine the elements of global security, peace, arms control, an end to nuclear weapons and expand the many assets of our country to launch, with other nations, major initiatives against global infections diseases (such as AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and virulent flu epidemics) which have and are coming to our country in increasingly drug resistant strains. Other low cost-high yield (compared to massive costs of redundant weapons) that extend the best of our country abroad include public health measures for drinking water safety abroad, tobacco control, stemming soil erosion, deforestation and misuse of chemicals, international labor standards, stimulating democratic institutions, agrarian cooperatives and demonstrating appropriate technologies dealing with agriculture, transportation, housing and efficient, renewable energy. The UN Development Program and many NGO's working abroad provide essential experience and directions in this regard including ending the specter of hunger, malnutrition and resultant diseases with known and proven remedies and practices. With this foreign policy orientation overhauls we will discover and facilitate the indigenous genius of the Third World, recalling Brazilian Paulo Freire (literacy), Egyptian Hasan Fathi (agrarian housing) and Bangladeshi Mohammed Yunis (microcredit).

Uh...OK. I always thought that peace was a matter of international relations with foreign ministers, not drinking water safety.

Oh, wait...Ralph does have a link that talks about Iraq:

Ralph Nader Opposed the Invasion & Presents a Plan for Peace and an End to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
The quagmire of the Iraq war and occupation could have been averted and needs to be ended expeditiously, replacing US forces with a UN peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance before we sink deeper into this occupation, with more U.S. casualties, huge financial costs, and diminished US security around and from the Islamic world. The faulty and fabricated rationale for war has the US in a quagmire. Already more than $155 billion has been spent, adding to huge Bush deficits, when critical needs are not being met at home. We should not be mired in the occupation of Iraq risking further upheavals when our infrastructure, schools and health care are deteriorating. Four years of free public college and university tuition for all students could be paid for by $155 billion.

Forget about the soldiers being shot at...we want free schools!

If Nader truly wanted votes, he would re-invent himself, get rid of the tired anti-corporate citizen empowerment crap, and deliver a targeted message designed to appeal to the disaffected ones. For example, if I were on Ralph's payroll, I'd write something like this:

Ralph Nader decries the senseless deaths of American soldiers and the $155 billion wasted in Iraq. Our continued efforts in Iraq do not undermine the terrorists, but instead make them stronger by inflaming the Third World against us. When elected, President Nader will end the American war in Iraq and use the money to improve our lives at home.

But Nader will never do this. Nader will yammer on and on about corporate America, and about getting on ballots, and about hanging chads and whatever else, and no one will care.