Birth date: February 27, 1934
Home town: Winsted, Conn.
Family: Single
Religion: Christian
Education: Bachelors degree, Princeton University (1955); LLB, Harvard University (1958).
Political service: Ran for president in 1996.
Military service: Army Reserve, 1959.
Career: Consumer advocate and founder of Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Center for Women's Policy Studies, Connecticut Citizen's Action Group, the Disability Rights Center, the Pension Rights Center and the Multinational Monitor magazine.

TODAY'S NEWS

AP: NADER REQUESTS MATCHING FUNDS EXTENSION 6/30
SALON: NADER'S EXTENSION REQUEST IS A 'LOOPHOLE'? 6/30
SALON: NO WORD FROM PEROT ON REFORM CANDIDACY 6/30
DIONNE: 'THE ROLE OF DISSIDENT VOICES' 6/30
NYT ED: NADER'S CANDIDACY 'MISGUIDED' 6/30
NYT: NADER: 'BUSH IS BEYOND SATIRE' 6/30
CSM: FOR MILLIONS, WORK IS STILL NOT A WAY OUT OF POVERTY 6/30
O'ROURKE: HEIGHTENING NADER'S CONTRADICTIONS 6/30
NATION: ON THE ROAD WITH NADER 6/30
GREIDER: 'THE TRAP THAT CENTRIST POLITICS HAS BUILT FOR US' 6/30

Welcome to Our Alternative to the Squirrel Cage.

My moment of truth on this whole thing came a few weeks ago. Politex had sent me an e-mail observing that he'd seen Nader on Fox News Sunday and had been impressed by the man's poised and articulate presentation. I was in turn impressed by this observation, since I'm one of those irascible folk who would rather be dipped in vinegar and shot full of carpet tacks than be forced to watch Sunday morning television, and so I really had no idea whether Nader would appear "stoop-shouldered and charisma-challenged" on the little screen, the way he is always described in newsprint, or if this now widely-accepted truism is just something print reporters think up when their minds wander during the speeches. And even I know enough about TV to be convinced that if you can keep your cool during the inanity-torture of a Fox talk show interview, you've got more cool than I'll ever have. So if Politex was impressed, I was impressed, too.

That being the case, I actually went to all the trouble of reading the transcript of the show the next day. First guest up was Tom Ridge, the then-current fave for the Shrubster's Veepster, who spent his time doing a remarkably accurate impersonation of Shrub when he "stays on message," regardless of the actual question asked or clarification demanded. Then, just when our man Ralph started doing a remarkably accurate impersonation of someone who has an actual point of view about actual issues that might actually matter to some voter-type persons, the Talking Head In Charge interrupted this refreshing change of pace to ask him about his potential VP short list. Nader quite nicely explained that his running mate is Winona LaDuke, and went on to talk a little about LaDuke's background.

Now, if you haven't been following the Nader campaign at all, you might not know that Nader told God, the media, and everyone else who might be listening last February that he would be running with LaDuke, who was his running mate in 1996. If you are a big-name TV journalist, however, you aren't apparently expected to do even a tiny little bit of research about your guests in advance--and reading a press release does not count as major research. Nor are you expected to ask yourself whether this "veepstakes" fetish is really an appropriate filter through which to approach a third-party candidate (or the Big Boys themselves, while we're on the subject).

But it got worse: Before the end of the day I was staring at a wire service story reporting to an astonished world that Ralph Nader had just "named" his running mate on Fox TV, the clear implication being that we had all been in the dark about this beforehand. Lest you think some grownup at the AP probably caught that one in an hour or two and pulled it down, think again: In the next 24 hours it got reprinted in a number of internet news services and at least one online newspaper that I saw. There's something just plain stunning about such a textbook case of the mainstream media acting like a hermetically-sealed squirrel cage. One uninformed TV journalist asks a dumb question, which the candidate calmly answers. A second uninformed print journalist confuses this with something that needs to be reported, apparently on the assumption that if it "happened" on TV, it must be "news." Not to be outdone, a bunch of uninformed internet news services exercise the editorial judgement that this non-news item needs to be reprinted all over the net, just in case us innocent voters were in danger of missing the point without some expert obfuscation to misguide us. Or else they were just bored that day. You tell me. At any rate, none of the substantive words Nader managed to get in edgewise during the show was reported, and emphatically not appearing in any news report was his observation about the deadening effects of corporate media conglomerates on our political discourse. Nobody at the AP ran right out to interview LaDuke, either, even though this "announcement" excited them so much. Go figure.

So that's why, when Politex asked me if I would be interested in editing Nader Watch, I didn't say "Gosh, I'm not sure I have an extra five minutes a day." I realized that one of two things might happen. Optimistically, the media might be forced to deal seriously and thoughtfully with Nader's candidacy and the issues it raises for everyone, left, right or center. In this case Nader Watch will be able to perform the same kind of organizing and assembling of a wide range of original and reprinted reporting and opinion that Bush Watch and Gore Watch have, which could take more than five minutes a day. Or, less optimistically, the media might continue to spend more column-inches on Gore's media consultants, Bush's nicknames for reporters, and Buchanan's crashing of the Reform Party than on Nader's actual policy statements, which would mean that Nader Watch would have to try to hector and shame them all into fulfilling their journalistic obligations to the voting public. Which could also take more than five minutes a day. However you look at it, it promises to be time-consuming and thought-provoking and useful. Of course I said yes. Sounds like more fun than watching television.

Moments of truth are handy things. Welcome to Nader Watch, designed and published by Politex, edited by Doris, unaffiliated and uncompensated U.S. citizens who advocate only that you go vote for whatever it is you want in November, after having thought about it seriously beforehand. Like its big brothers Bush Watch and Gore Watch, Nader Watch will bring you links to the entire gamut of internet information about the Nader campaign--from the respectable to the responsible to the reprehensible to the risible--along with daily news reports, 'toons, editorials, analysis, and, we hope, reader letters and comments. If you're tired of the squirrel habitat, please join us for an out-of-the-cage view of the presidential election season. --Doris

SFC: HOW NADER CAN GET INTO THE DEBATES 6/29
SLATE: WHAT CLINTON-GORE DID TO DESERVE NADER 6/29
CW: BROWER, HARRELSON AND GRANNIE D. STUMP FOR NADER 6/29
MORROW: THE ULTIMATE IN CORPORATE POLITICS: BUSH-GORE, INC. 6/29
NYT: READER LETTERS ON NADER’S CANDIDACY 6/29
COCKBURN: COLOMBIA: ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE NADER 6/29
StPT: GREENS REPRESENT MAJORITY VIEWS 6/29
TOMPAINE: THE NADER AGENDA 6/29
LAT: REFORM PARTY LOOKING FOR ANYBODY BUT PAT 6/29
SLATE: 527-GROUP WEBSITES OFFER SPIN 6/29
LAT: NADER TALKS CHILD POVERTY, MINIMUM WAGE 6/28
MSNBC: ANGRY RALPH AND THE FLAKE FACTOR 6/28
TOMPAINE: REFORM PARTY AFFILIATES ENDORSE NADER 6/28
SALON: PEROT MAY STEAL THE SHOW FROM BUCHANAN 6/28
PINKERTON: THIRD PARTIES HAVE NO SHOT AT POWER 6/28
ADBUSTERS ED: VOTE NADER 6/28
NR: MILTON! C-SPAN HATH NEED OF THEE! 6/28
SHEILDS: THERE USED TO BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN D’S AND R’S 6/28
RMN: ‘WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD OF FAILURE?’ 6/27
MCT: NADER: NOT FOR SALE 6/27
DURST: IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN 6/27
MARTEL: THE NEW HAPPY HAPPY JOY RALPH 6/27
USAT: BUSH AND GORE ARE IDENTICAL ON TRADE AND BUDGET POLICY 6/27
WRIGHT: WHO PAYS FOR ECONOMIC POLICIES? 6/27
TOMPAINE: VOTERS LIKE ‘EM FEISTY 6/27
AP: NADER CALLS FOR FUNDS FOR CHILDREN 6/27
SALON: “HOTTER THAN HIGH SCHOOL LOVE” 6/27
BG: DEBATES DEBATE DEBATED 6/27
NADER: MANAGED CARE HAS GOT TO GO 6/27
AP: NADER: ‘MAJORITARIAN, NOT FRINGE VALUES’ 6/26
AJ-C: THE LAST HONEST MAN 6/26
NHA: DEBATE EXCLUSION IS SHAMEFUL 6/26
SCRIPPS: NADER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 6/26
MST: ‘THE WASTELANDS ON THE FRINGE OF POLITICS’ 6/26
CSM: NADER ATTRACTS DIVERSE SUPPORTERS 6/26
NATION: GIVE US A REAL DEBATE 6/26
BEAT: ANDERSON: ‘IT’S THE SYSTEM ITSELF THAT IS SPOILED’ 6/26
FAIR: NADER LEFT OFF THE POLITICAL WEBSITES 6/26
CST: NADER STRUGGLES TO MEET IL BALLOT RULES 6/26
DP: HE AIN’T PRETTY, HE’S MY CANDIDATE 6/26
NYT: NO MORE POLITICS AS USUAL 6/26
WP: ‘UNDERDOGS WITH ATTITUDE’ 6/26
CT: NADER SHOULD ‘JUMP-START’ THE GREENS 6/26
FREEP: NADER TO CAMPAIGN IN GOP COUNTRY 6/26
MENDENHALL: WHY NEBRASKANS SHOULD VOTE NADER 6/26
SLATE: TALKING HEADS TALK NADER 6/26

SJMN: POLLS FAVOR OPEN DEBATES 6/25
TORVIK: THE FOXES GUARD THE HENHOUSE 6/25
MAGIDA: THE NADER WEALTH HYPOCRISY 2/25
MCT: STRONG SUPPORT FOR NADER IN MADISON 6/25
CBS: WHAT DOES NADER WANT? 6/25
AP: GREEN PLATFORM DROPS TERM LIMITS, KEEPS GUN CONTROL 6/25
WARREN: WHAT'S NADER DOING WITH TEAMSTERS? 6/25
LAT: GREENS CAPTURING THE DISENFRANCHISED VOTE 6/25
PI: NADER BRINGS CREDIBILITY TO GREENS 6/25
RMN: IT'S THE ARROGANCE, STUPID 6/25
PINKERTON: PURISTS VERSUS PRAGMATISTS 6/24
CSINDY: THOSE COLORFUL GREENS 6/24
SFC: THE DRAB DEBATE THE DREARY AND DUELING DIETS 6/24
TIME: 'A RETARDED AND RADICALLY UNINTERESTING ART FORM' 6/24
AP: REFORM-MINDED VOTERS MAY RALPH BEFORE THEY'LL PAT 6/24
MSNBC: CONVENTIONS 'THE BIGGEST MONEY SUMPS IN HISTORY' 6/24
TAP: PAT A BIGGER THREAT TO BUSH THAN RALPH IS TO GORE 6/24
SLATE: GOP SHOULD HOSE BUCHANAN WITH NADER, NOT HAGELIN 6/24
CT: WHY TEAMSTERS PRAISE BUT DON'T ENDORSE NADER 6/24
AP: ASK A SQUIRRELLY QUESTION, GET A SQUIRRELLY CANDIDATE 6/23
AP: NADER TO RECEIVE GREEN PARTY NOMINATION 6/23
BS: NADER'S GOAL IS 'SHAKING UP THE SYSTEM' 6/23
NYT : DEMS TORN BETWEEN FEAR AND CONTEMPT FOR NADER 6/23
CT: DEBATES WILL LOOK LIKE ANYTHING EXCEPT . . . DEBATES 6/23
CNN: HOFFA SAYS MAKE DEBATES REAL, INCLUDE NADER AND BUCHANAN 6/23
MCT: SEND THE JOKERS TO FREEPORT IF YOU WANT A REAL DEBATE 6/23
PRESS RELEASE: LET'S THROW OUR OWN CONVENTIONS 6/23
WP: HOFFA SAYS NADER IS ON THE SIDE OF THE UNION MOVEMENT 6/23
SLATE: NADER A BETTER INVESTOR THAN TORRICELLI 6/23
PROGRESSIVE: NADER TO GORE: YOU STRAY, YOU PAY 6/23
FREEP: COULD THE REPUBLICANS THREATEN BUSH WITH NADER, TOO? 6/23
REUTERS: TEAMSTERS HOLD NADER PRESS CONF THURS 6/22
TURNIPSEED: CRUSADER NADER HANDS CONGRESS TO DEMS 6/22
SORENSON: A PROGRESSIVE EVEN A CONSERVATIVE COULD LOVE 6/22
DP: NADER'S WAR CHEST UP TO $700K 6/22
MEADOWS: THE GOOD AS ENEMY OF THE PERFECT 6/22
AP: DEBATE COMMISSION: WE'RE NOT HERE TO HELP ANYONE GET ELECTED 6/22
WP: UNIONS PRAISE NADER'S TRADE STANCE TO THREATEN GORE 6/22
N YT: UNIONS DIVIDED OVER NADER AND GORE 6/22
SALON: A FORUM FOR IDEAS OR FOR WINNERS? 6/22
BUELL: GORE'S ENEMY IS CENTRISM, NOT NADER 6/21
DUNN: 'KAMIKAZE' NADER HANDS SUPREMES TO BUSH 6/21
TAP: WHAT CAN NADER CAMPAIGN ACCOMPLISH? 6/21
NY T: NADER SUES OVER BUD BOWL DEBATES 6/20
SALON: WHAT'S SO HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT NADER'S INCOME? 6/20
WEISBROT: CHINA VOTE HANDS UNION ENDORSEMENT TO NADER 6/20
HIGHTOWER: CNN DOES VOODOO PUNDITRY WITH NADER CAMPAIGN 6/20
AP: DEBATE SPONSORS HAVE BUSINESS BEFORE CONGRESS 6/20
TELEGRAPH: NADER SMARTER THAN WALL ST 6/20
WARREN: NADER INTERVIEW CANNED WHEN HE CLAMS UP. 6/20/00
AP: NADER WILL NOT RELEASE PERSONAL INCOME TAX INFO. 6/19/00
BG: NADER FILES COMPLAINT VS. CORPORATE FINANCING OF DEBATES. 6/19/00
LAT: CRUSADER NADER PLAYS LOW-KEY SPOILER. 6/18/00
WP: NADER'S WORTH $3.8 MILLION. 6/18/00
AP: NADER REAPS PROFIT FROM TECH STOCKS. 6/18/00
WP: NADER'S "AS SERIOUS AS A DIOXIN SPILL." 6/17/00

for previous nader headlines, go to...

Nader Watch is a non-advocacy site paid for and published by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen.
Edited by Doris.
(c) 2000. Permission of author required for reprinting.
Duration of working link not under our control.
Updated daily at various times.
Nader Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible
for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site.
Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site
is at your own risk.