The Elecion of 2008 was already one for the history books with the first female and former first Lady candidate, the first partly non-while candidate, and the oldest corrupt candidate. Now, thanks to the entry of Ralph Nader into the contest, it's been transmogrified into a four-ring circus.

One has to wonder about why Nader is attempting to run again. Sure, he takes his positions seriously, but the focus is essentially personal. As he announced his candidacy on Meet The Press this morning, I didn't hear a single thing he wants to do FOR this nation. Every point he raised this morning was in opposition to the two major parties and their common corporate economic support system (not that I have a specific problem with exposing that fact).

What Nader should be doing IMHO is to act as an impartial senior statesman, taking on and possibly refuting the wilder claims of all the candidates. He could act in this manner - and not disrupt the already delicate balances between a semi-civilized election and mass chaos - only if he had no partisan axe to grind for himself. His effectiveness in taking up this quest is seriously weakened due to his wanting to be a part of the mess and not a part of the clean-up crew.

Think of how much better people could be informed if Nader was discussing the news instead of making it. Think of the possibilities if Nader were to discuss the numerous fallacies of Hillary's, including claiming that Bush I was responsible for NAFTA and not her husband; of holding Obama's feet to the fire over his plans for the nation so that he stays on track and not get distracted into joining Hillary's food fight; of presenting detailed information concerning the golden chains embodying McCain's slavish connections to the media owners. If Nader were to act in such a manner, without benefit to himself, he would be acting as the crusader he likes to believe he is.

But that isn't going to happen. Not now.

Instead, we will travel back to yesteryear, rehashing the Nader effect on the 2000 and 2004 elections, and whether 2008 will now follow a similar path. We will have to endure his attempts to get the attention of the other candidates - and the media - regarding his take on the issues facing this nation. Nader has some interesting takes on today's issues (Read the transcript!), but he has yet to offer anything resembling a contrete proposal on how he proposes to achieve these lofty goals (he's not alone - it's a common candidate failing!). The position statements offered on Nader's website are seriously sparse, considering that he's starting late and has a long way to go to match the output of the other surviving candidates.

Ralph, you took us twice already. I doubt we are going to flock to you in the numbers you've become accustomed to seeing. Too many of us think we need change, but we aren't willing to accept another pig in a poke. If we were, Hillary would have put Obama to bed already. You (and Obama, since I'm on the topic) need to be more expressive about what you intend to do about all these pressing national problems. Merely laying down platitudes (as Obama tends to do) or pointing out yet again what the problems are doesn't solve anything.

Obama appears to many voters to be coming closest to this desired behavior, even though he hasn't yet convinced me that he deserves the job. He certainly has no one who can push him like you could - IF you weren't in the middle of the muddle. Rethink this, Ralph. Drop out now before you damage what chances the nation has to recover from Bush.