Nader's tombstone will probably say that he single-handedly prevented a green president by running for the Green Party.
What's very good about this film is the contrast between most journalists who condemn Nader's hubris for not taking responsibility to help the worst US president in history to power - and the unrelenting support by his team and partisans. They are right that the two party systems turned the US into an oligarchy of interest groups. But by 2004 it was already clear what a disaster the Bush presidency was, so the personal attacks on Nader's renewed run were understandable.
Michael Moore is shown endorsing him in 2000 saying that it's undemocratic to vote for the lesser evil, and then in 2004 he begs him on his knees not to run. Yet the Electoral College was the same impediment to democracy in 2000, so given what was at stake, the Nader supporters should have known better. Nader points out that the Democrats supported many Republican efforts, foremost the Iraq war. He is absolutely right to condemn Kerry for taking a pro-war stance at a time when 42% of Americans wanted it to end. So it is unfair to blame him for the Democrats' disastrous campaign(s).
While fairly balanced, the film tries to point out through his legacy in consumer protection that he would have made an excellent president. Still, all of us who remember Election 2000 will forever wonder what kind of a world we would live in if Nader had conceded in favor of Gore before election night. Probably a far better one.
What's very good about this film is the contrast between most journalists who condemn Nader's hubris for not taking responsibility to help the worst US president in history to power - and the unrelenting support by his team and partisans. They are right that the two party systems turned the US into an oligarchy of interest groups. But by 2004 it was already clear what a disaster the Bush presidency was, so the personal attacks on Nader's renewed run were understandable.
Michael Moore is shown endorsing him in 2000 saying that it's undemocratic to vote for the lesser evil, and then in 2004 he begs him on his knees not to run. Yet the Electoral College was the same impediment to democracy in 2000, so given what was at stake, the Nader supporters should have known better. Nader points out that the Democrats supported many Republican efforts, foremost the Iraq war. He is absolutely right to condemn Kerry for taking a pro-war stance at a time when 42% of Americans wanted it to end. So it is unfair to blame him for the Democrats' disastrous campaign(s).
While fairly balanced, the film tries to point out through his legacy in consumer protection that he would have made an excellent president. Still, all of us who remember Election 2000 will forever wonder what kind of a world we would live in if Nader had conceded in favor of Gore before election night. Probably a far better one.