Much to the chagrin of the Democratic party hierarchy and the "anyone but Bush" crowd, this weekend Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for President. Unlike in 2000 when we was the Green Party candidate, this time around he will run as an independent. This means Nader will have to gather 64,000 signatures in each state in order to get on the ballot. According to an article in today's New York Times, the democratic party will "bring lawsuits to knock Mr. Nader off state ballots."

Once again, Nader is running to spotllight the increasing corporate control of both political parties. His critics claim he is a "spoiler" who is increasing Bush's chances at getting reelected. In response to Nader's assertion that there is little difference between the two major parties, this is what Democratic frontrunner John Kerry had to say:

>

"That's what he said with respect to Bush and Gore, and I think it was pretty clear to most Americans that the difference was night and day. "I intend to speak to all Americans. If people want to beat George Bush badly, and that's what's at stake here, they'll see that I'm speaking to concerns that Ralph Nader and other people have."

There has been a deluge of stories arguing that Nader's 2004 candidacy is a "spoiler" one that will cost the Democratic candidate the election, as in 2000 when Gore "lost Florida by only 537 votes." While some people who would have voted for the Democratic candidate may vote for Nader, covering Nader as a spoiler and blaming him for what happened in Florida in 2000 ignores the much larger story to come out of the 2000 election---widespread voter disenfranchisement when large numbers of voters were "misidentified" as felons. The media should be covering DBT's disqualification of voters in the 2000 election and Nader's platform not the fact that Nader "cost Gore the election." Incidently, some 30,000 votes were cast for third party candidates other than Nader in Florida, but you never hear claims that the Workers World Party's 1,804 votes cost Gore the election.

So what are the differences between Kerry and the Republicans? According to Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair from the online magazine Counterpunch, not much.

"Kerry agrees with Bush about the tax cuts. He agrees with him about the Patriot Act. He agrees with him on trade. He agrees with him on the war. Why change horses, Bush will ask the American people. "I can manage things better," Kerry will respond. What else can he say? He's never once, in three senate terms, offered legislation to inconvenience the "special interests" at which he's lately launched a few pop-gun attacks. "Over the course of his senate career," writes Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, "Kerry has not been averse to taking campaign cash from the companies and firms with a direct interest in his work. Since '95, he raised more than 30 million for his various campaigns, most of it from industries such as finance and telecommunication companies (which are overseen by the senate committees he served) and the law and lobby firms that represent them." (Kerry: He's Peaking, Already)

For more on which candidates are beholden to which special interest groups, check out the Center for Public Integrity's Report Who Bankrolls Bush and his Democratic Rivals?