Nader is the worst of the nanny state socialists who'd put the US economy on even shakier ground than we are now. Give him equal time and watch his candidacy vanish into thin air.

His entry into the candidate field has been matched with the movement of support of every intelligent, rational individual I know. Please give him more time - he's one of the few to acknowledge with truth the issues we face.

F ralph nader. He should be given zero airtime. He's obviously only doing this because he wants attention and to feel important. he probably just wants to throw a wrench in the whole process. If he was so worried about this before, why announce it just now? he needs to stick to consumer rights and leave politics alone.

Ralph Nader running for president, after the disaster he helped institute in 2000, is nothing more than an attempt to pat his own back. He is trying to prove a point with no thought for what his point will do for the well-being of his country. I hardly find that "presidential behavior." He knows he cannot win. He also knows that his part in this crucial election could be a repeat of his last attempt. No candidate is perfect, but we live in a democracy and we choose the best from what we've got. I have no issue with him calling on the democratic candidates to support aspects of his own platform. Let them meet and have him offer his support to the candidate he likes best. If he really wanted to run, he would have put his hat in a year ago. He could have backed out respectfully when it was clear he could no longer win, having again brought his ideas into the public forum, much like Dennis Kucinich did. If he wants to serve in public office, he should run for a race he can win instead of hoping like an egomaniac that he can have another 15 minutes of fame. I forgive him for 2000. 2008 is just an ego-trip.

So, to answer your question, Wolf, he is not running in any primary. Right now, he is insignificant. Come September, you have no choice but to let him dig the democratic party a few feet into the ground. Your job is to cover the news. Unfortunately, that means giving him the due he probably ought not deserve. Let's hope he comes to his senses before then.

If he gets .4% of the vote, give him .4% of the coverage.

Savvy democrats will have learned their lesson from Florida 2000, and will marginalize Nader as early as possible. Besides, in a field where McCain and Obama are already hoping to grab independents, Nader will get even less than he got in 2000. He doesn't belong at debates.

No offense Mr. Nader, but what have you done lately? For Gen X voters, like me, Nader is little more than a distraction–correction, an old distraction.

Can third party candidates take votes away from Democrats and Republicans? Of course they can! Mainly because there exists a certain group of voters in this country, myself included, that are sick of the "same old, same old" in Washington. While I am currently an Obama supporter, I welcome, with open arms, diverse opinions and anyone willing to "take on the establishment." Give Nader some time. Don't stifle the views of those that confront a sick, corrupt and dying political system.

Let Nader prove voter interest by getting supporters to sign petitions. CNN can decide the number of signatures that would be appropriate (per state, for example).

Ralph Nader running for president, after the disaster he helped institute in 2000, is nothing more than an attempt to pat his own back. He is trying to prove a point with no thought for what his point will do for the well-being of his country. I hardly find that "presidential behavior." He knows he cannot win. He also knows that his part in this crucial election could be a repeat of his last attempt. No candidate is perfect, but we live in a democracy and we choose the best from what we've got. I have no issue with him calling on the democratic candidates to support aspects of his own platform. Let them meet and have him offer his support to the candidate he likes best. If he really wanted to run, he would have put his hat in a year ago. He could have backed out respectfully when it was clear he could no longer win, having again brought his ideas into the public forum, much like Dennis Kucinich did. If he wants to serve in public office, he should run for a race he can win instead of hoping like an egomaniac that he can have another 15 minutes of fame. I forgive him for 2000. 2008 is just an ego-trip.

You did not post my comment so I will try again!
Why are you asking us?
CNN decided that Edwards should have no coverage, so he is out of the race.
Hillary Clinton has a major support base, and since you cannot drop her from air time, you have shown her in every negative aspect that you can. You are pushing to get her out of the race! To your dimay, she is still in the race! And still a strong candidate!
And Obama gets every positive media slant you can give him and it is almost 24/7! And then you conduct CNN polls and say he is winning!
So, again, why are you asking us?

I find his decision to run again a bit distasteful. He cannot win and he knows how he has affected the past elections. If he can't tell how he ruined our country by being the obstacle that allowed Bush to be president, then there is something very telling wrong with him. He may have good ideas, but they parallel our Democratic candidates that have put months into campaigning. I would treat him about the same as we did when Colbert tried to run. If Nader really wanted to enact change, why wait until he is into another four year term to make changes. He could act as a catalyst for change within Washington. If he really feels as though he is the only one who can do this in Washington, then he appears to be a bit disillusioned. He's 74 and hasn't done anything to make the changes as of yet. Why waste the time we could have learning about candidates and issues that really matter and not someone simply trying to appease his own ego.

Give him fair air time, he's running the same as the others are. He deserves to be heard just the same.

Use a simple equation
First he already lost an election so he's already out 30%
Second receiving less than one percent of the vote the last time he campaigned (2004) knocks off another 20%.
Finally as a person who's run for president more than four times and not won a single significant margin take 4 x 10% and knock off 40% for wasted time.
That leaves 10% of the time he'd be allowed as a viable candidate.

Since there are three +one candidates. He should be allowed 2.5% of time or one and a half minutes on every hour (excluding commercials) of debate.

But rather than place him in the precarious position of possibly blah blah blahing over his alloted time and being forced to shut up, I suggest that a quick 90 second ad be allowed at the very beginning of each debate (prior to anything important).

This is ridiculous. I'd bet that most of the people attempting to brush Nader aside as some sort of fringe loon haven't the slightest clue regarding the policies he advocates. Why should we only get coverage of wealthy elites? Why should only those with money be given media coverage and a fair shot at the presidency? Give him equal time and let each candidate's message speak for itself. Anything less is biased censorship.

He should get an occasional reference, but not be included in the debates. He only wants a forum for his views…we want to elect a president. Its a distraction.

Nader should get exactly enough time each day to remind the American public that we got stuck with Bush because Nader pulled votes from Gore.

these guy works for republicans. i dont trust these guy.

I say turn Nadar loose on Obama, you sure don't let Hillary say anything. Oh, wait, you do let her answer sexist questions that are tied to Bill.

Who elected Wolf or any other pundit to decide for us all who is the viable candidate.
CNN marginalized Rep. Ron Paul & Rep. Kucinich, More galling what you did to Edwards when he attacked the holy grail of corporate greed? Non coverage and heaped scorn, shameful.

Please don't give this egomaniac any more media exposure because ultimately, whether you agree with him or not, he can only help the republican party. Anybody out there who votes for Nader would obviously never vote for McCain…but what they don't get is Nader vote = McCain vote!. Nader is not an idiot and must recognize this fact, yet he has no regard for the American people…keep him out!

By many accounts, Ralph has a fear of germs that may well be hypochondriacal. When he was interviewed in July 2000 for CNN, his main concern before the interview was "Did you wash that [earpiece]?". According to his former editor David Sanford, Nader refuses dinner invitations from anyone with pets, because he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates dogs.

Give him the percent of time equivelent to the percent of popular vote he got in 2004. 0.4% of your time.

i don't trust these guy.

Nader, who has been running for president essentially since 1968, is an ego-driven buffoon who deserves NO air time. He is using the press to spread his garbage that only he is pure enough to solve all our nation's problems. He pops up every four years and gets the press to hand him a megaphone. He deserves to be ignored. He has lost all credibility, and it's absurd we are wasting time on him.

He should get JACK. This guy comes and goes. He never has been veiw as a serious candidate in any election. I wish he just go away and leave the REAL candidates to run.

Ralph Nader is not a legitimate candidate.

Honestly, whoever becomes president should create a position for Ralph Nader within the electoral system. He should be the registered Devil's Advocate for debates during the primaries and the general election, to ensure that the candidates actually address the issues and make substantive statements.

He'll never be president, but he does an excellent job of asking the questions candidates don't want to answer.

Ralph Nader should get little if any air time.

He always runs, he always loses, it appears to be a total
ego trip for him to run for president.

Too bad he can't think of anything better to do with his money…

NOTHING!!!!! Don't waste your time on this guy. He and the people who vote for him needs psychological evaluation.

He should get 0.4% of the airtime, which he has already exceeded.

Nader is useful for bringing into focus issues that have not been in front plane so far. It would be interesting to see Obama and McCain face Nader in at least one debate, to see how they respond to his positions, and to measure his ability to influence the agenda debated.

As someone who leans towards Democrats candidate, I must still confess to the possibility that there are voters with strong leftist preference, to the point that they are thinking - "If there is no Independent option, I do not care who wins the election". They should know about Nader as existing choice.

There is one thing CNN should NOT do, and that is taking on it's shoulder's the 'lessons learned' from 2000 and 2004 elections, and in order not to 'compromise' chances of major candidates, rule out Nader up front. That is up to voters, not media to think of.

Finally, the question that can be answered only empirically is - how would Nader influence the ratings of the debates?

Nader should play by the rules like everyone else, not take the shortcut. He would've gotten pounded in the primaries and would have to go away.

Not a minute more than you gave Ron Paul! Your show is garbage.

Ron Paul 08′ Freedom

You have already given him too much coverage.

Will Nader be a part of the CNN debate Tues night? I hope so. We need a third candidate to referee.

How much time to Nader? Zero! Running for President is clearly a hobby of his in which he indulges for his own amusement with total and callous disregard for the consequences to the nation. Nader's time came and went as a consumer advocate. As a politician he has only negative consequences to offer. If he is stupid enough to not realize what he did in Florida in 2000, then he is unqualified on the basis of mental incompetence to lead the country. Zero!

All the Democrats (who are afraid of losing votes to him) will say no time, and all the Republicans (who need him to take away indy votes) want to give him plenty of time. Independents, wish there was a more viable independent candidate, but until that happens, an American voice that respects every human in the most basic way should not be silenced.

If you don't agree with his message, don't listen to him. If he scares you because he tells it like it is, you shouldn't be in politics.

As the mainstream media, whether we Americans like that fact or not, you must realize the power you hold over the presidential race. You have marginalized candidates like Ron Paul, Denis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, condemning them to obscurity when their views may actually have been supported by many voters. While such voters should have been better informed, one must recognize that many trust greatly in media like CNN to thoroughly educate them. Personally, I am appalled at the disregard you have held for Mike Gravel, who is still in the race as a Democratic nominee yet is COMPLETELY ignored in your coverage of the party's campaign. He may have no delegates, but by refusing to mention him as a candidate, you convey false information and also disrespect.

You cannot change the detrimental attitude you chose to take with regard to these highly intelligent, yet underfunded and thus ignored candidates. Yet you can make up for it by giving Ralph Nader the air time he deserves. I understand that CNN simply will not give him the same amount of air time as it gives Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. But Nader deserves a report on his viewpoints and his legacy so that voters will not be misled by CNN into supporting the problems that a two party system entails. Perhaps, unlike the forgotten Gravel, he might be included in a debate with the candidates?

None, zip, nada…….. zero! Nader is an egomaniac, a spoiler! He ruined Gore's chances of being elected.

People let's send a clear message to Nader, DO NOT give a single vote.

As little as possible, thank you.

In response to your question about how much air time to give Ralph Nader in the course of the upcoming general campaign, I would say certainly no more than was given Dennis Kucininch. Obviously Nader has no chance of winning and likes to hear himself talk . He probably won't even get on the ballots in many states. Quite honestly, if he was on CNN, I would be forced (as difficult as that would be) to switch to another station. He's a "Johnny come lately" and I'm sure will not get out and campaign like Clinton, Obama and McCain.

We're on a national Date with our future significant other, and Mr. Nader is the nerdy guy at the bar who keeps yammering in our ear and inviting us back to his place to see his new boat. Zero time, Wolf. We're not idiots waiting for Mr. Nader to enlighten us and we're well aware (we Americans) that no candidate is a perfect match. Let's take the time to get to know the candidates who might actually lead this country, their values, and their thought-processes.

Nader looked at his checkbook and decided to make a few bucks, again.

Let him on the ballot… legally we have to.

But if you let him in the debates Wolf, well… I'm a little low on money too, so…

I'd like to announce my candidacy for President of the United States!

Make room on the debate stage for me Wolf, I'll be filing my paperwork shortly…

Give Nader what he desreves zip zero coverage, he is old hat
no cattle, his run is laughable if not ridiculas

Perhaps it's long since time that everyone, even third party candidates who register only marginally in opinion polls should be included as fully as the two major parties' candidates. They sure don't get a fair shake thanks to biased election laws, it'd be nice if the media didn't decide for us which candidates are "viable". Our democratic-republic could use more than two strands of its vast political tapestry represented in the media. If Nader has enough support to make it on ballots throughout the country, he deserves equal time.

about 3 tenths of a second, about the total number of votes he got in 2004

I am glad that CNN's talking heads are finally acknowledging (albeit indirectly) their influence on the election. Wolf, to answer your question, you should "give" Nader as much time as time as you "give" any of the other candidates (the arrogance of this notion is incredible). This will probably come as a complete surprise to you, but its not up to you, Wolf, to decide for America which candidates are worth listening to. You are supposed to report the news, not manipulate it.

Don't give him any air time unless and until he is on the ballot in at least 40 states. From that point, give him air time equivalent to his polling numbers plus 5%. If he's polling at 2%, give him coverage at 7%. That gives him a fair chance to increase his position without wining about lack of coverage. If he can't increase his polling accordingly, drop down to his polling level. In the last two months of the campaign, you shouldn't give any coverage at all to a candidate that has not exceeded 10% in the polls (already being generous here) because they can't have any chance of winning or doing anything but playing spoiler.

WHAT TIME IS IT? FORGET IT' HIS TIME IS UP!!!!!!!! SEE YOU BYE!!!!!!

he's knowledgeable. What does it matter that he won't win. He's promoting issues. If the democrats want those votes as a boost they can adopt an issue (aren't they supposed to be for consumers anyway)?

I believe you are answering your own question; Nader may not lack interesting opinions and the rules of democracy say let him speak. But the news media, especially the mainstream kind-, do not see much promise in Nader, since he's not the big story. So I don't think you will give him much airtime. The likes of Hannity and O'Reilly will embrace him, for sure (and claim to be "Fair & Ballanced" about it), because they'll do anything to take votes away from the Democrats, which is, of course, what Nader will do, regardless of the small numbers.

Yes, Nader should be heard. Let's keep that 1st Amendment. alive and well.

None. He's done enough damage to our country already.

Ralph Nader should not get any free time on National Television.

Wolf, I don't think he should get much air time at all. It's really rediculous that he is even entering the race. He has proven he is not electable, by his past runs for the whitehouse. It's almost like he is trying to cause problems by entering at this time. It really does not matter, because he won't get much of the vote, therefore I don't think you should give him much time at all.

Absolutely! Give a little time to a a new voice.

I believe Ralph Nader should receive air time as a qenuine canidate, and be shown the same respect from the press as any other canidate would be shown. His ideas about corporate America are right-on. We all know it. His ideas about both Republicans and Demorcrats being equally beholden to "big business" ring true. Let's hear him out. I have always believed him to be an honest man (perhaps one of the last) , DON'T SILENCE HIM! This is democracy in action.

Somewhere between zero and five minutes per week. Jerry Florida

Mr Nader is not a viable candidate. So he deserves NO TIME

Why don't you cover the Libertarian party primaries and pump up their candidate too, so that hopefully they can siphon from the Republicans like Nader will from the Democrats? Does that seem fair?

I think we should have him present at the presidential debates. He talks about issues that none of the candidates address. The American people deserve to hear the candidates talk about a wide range of issues, not just the standard ones asked at each debate.

None.
Get over it Nader. The rest of us sure are!

Ralph Nader desrves little time. He is surely not a realistic candidate. He did a major disservcie to the environmental objectives of his "Green" Party but causing George Bush to be elected. he has very little credibility left with the electorate, young or old. Let the press focus on the real candidates and on their stands on the real issues, icluding the Green issues of the enviroment.

Since this country is in desperate need of a third party, Nadar should be given ample air time.

Thanks for asking this, Wolf.

How about giving each candidate airtime in proportion to his or her support? For instance, if Nader is polling at 1%, he should get around 1% of the total airtime for presidential candidates.

I think this system is fair, and coverage can grow or shrink as his support does.

How dare you catalog candidates according to your own subjective views? So THIS is why you didn't give as much coverage to Ron Paul as you did to warmongers like John McCain, and religious fanatics as Mike Huckabee. Shame on you for this sickening bias; I'm not a supporter of Mr. Nader, but recognize your obligation to fair coverage of ALL the candidates. Who cares what you and other media outlets think about the candidates, you're journalists, we don't care what you think, but what you investigate on. This is truly, truly sickening of your part. Thanks for showing your true colors.

absolutely none! why waste good media time on someone like him.

Instead of being an Independent candidate for President, why not offer Ralph Nader an opportunity to join the "Best Political Team On Television"? This way Nader can voice his views about Obama and Clinton as well as address the issues that he thinks matter in this Presidential election.

Listening to that bit of footage I say…..GO RALPH!!!!!
Give him all the air time you can, CNN.
Someone has got to discuss these ISSUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every candidate should be allowed proper time to support his campaign through the media. Why is it, then, that major media actively allocates airtime to candidates with ratings and other industry-only concerns in mind?

Does CNN cast a vote in our presidential election? No.

Then, I say, why should CNN be deciding the credibility or incredibility of a candidate? Even if a candidate is a seemingly improbable option, he/she deserves an equal opportunity to run for office. This is, I believe, afforded to him/her by citizenship in our country.

Furthermore, I highly disapprove of your networks actions during the early primary debates. Your obvious on-air neglect of candidates outside of the mainstream (Kucinich, Paul, Gravel) is in clear reflect of the very problems that face Washington today. If our media cannot put aside its bias and agenda long enough to allow American citizens the right to receive accurate and unobstructed information about (all of) their political options, how can we expect our government to do the same (with big oil and the rest of the lobbyist plague).

As Americans, it is our responsibility to be informed and involved in our elections. As an American news media corporation, is it not your responsibility to aid us in this pursuit?

Significant candidates should get equal coverage. I would define "significant" as one who can get at least 5% in the national poll.

Stay home, Ralph. Do the country a favor. Take up gardening or shuffleboard and stay out of the way of real candidates.

WOLF:

I live in Fort Erie and enjoy my retirement here- i worked in Batavia for many years.

Mr Nader is very self spoken and intelligent but his voice means not too much now-his time is past.

No one would know why he needs a little attention -he is only helping John McCain in a minor way..

Great job Wolf -we watch you every day-regards Gordon

Let's face the facts; if Nadar was not running in 2000 Gore would be our president and the world would be a much better place for it. Yes, I'm bitter and I feel that it's justified.

However, I do agree with Nadar that his voice should be heard - as should any individual interested in the presidency. Of course, we must keep this in the context of the outdated Electoral College. If the US simply went on the popular vote then there would be no issue with three, nine or thiry candidates. But, the truth is that this election will come down to only a handful of states (FL, OH, PA, etc.) and the anti-Republican vote gets diluted (to a greater extent) when the Green or Indenpendent party put forward attractive candidates. It's unfortunate, but true.

Again, I think Nadar's voice should be heard…but only after the Electoral College is eliminated. My anti-McCann vote will go the Democrats not because they're necessarily the best for the job, but because that's the only way my voice will be heard.

Do the Repulbicans plan to introduce the delegate system and Electoral College in Iraq?!?

Nader deserves as much coverage as Ross Perot received in 1992, who took away a much bigger share of the votes — oh, wait a minute, that was okay then because it benefited the Clintons. Enough of the whining about third-party candidates. If a major-party candidate is so pathetic that he needs to rely on the 0.4% of the electorate that Nader is going to get, then he should join Hillary who will be baking cookies back in New York state soon..

None…he is inconsequential at this point and will only cause more trouble than it is worth.

Conduct a national poll…if he scores less than 2% do not even include him in debates.Do it the Kucinich way, or else we will have been unfair to Kucinich.

Wolf:

In my view Nader should get no time at all. There is no question that he drained votes from Gore in 2000 and we have suffered the results ever since. Now it appears we will have another close election in the fall and the republicans will be filling Nader's coffers in the hope that he will aid them once again. Giving him air time will only lend credence to this. Our ability to mend the unprecedented damage inflicted on our nation and the world over the past eight years by George Bush is seriously jeopardized if Nader can do what he did in 2000. He got 2.9 million votes back then. 2008 could, just could be another 2000. If it is, we all lose again. That is a result I'm not sure we can withstand as a nation.

It all depends on who wins between Hillary and Barack. At least now I will have another option if Barrack does not win.

After 8 years of destruction inside and outside the US by the current administration - does the media really want to faciltate a "candidate" who has NO chance of winning - and allow 4 more years of the same failed policies through splitting the vote again - or make the correct decision and allow the real challengers a chance to stop the heomoragging ?- which will be no easty task anyway..
Give him the air time that he deserves entering a race that is already 1/2 over - none.

Mr. Nader deserves as much time as the next candidate. I am an Obama supporter, but I am also tired of our two party system. Most Americans seem to have it in their heads that there are only two choices when it comes time to vote. I believe the media should do its part by informing the public about what every candidate stands for.

NOTHING!

Well Wofle, I think Nader should get about as much air time as I'm getting. Thanks to him we missed the White House and got Bush….not again.

Bob wrote: "I think if Hillary were to get the nomination, Nader may indeed have a chance at racking up some serious single digit (maybe double digit??) percentage points from Democrats unsatisfied with their party's candidate. If Obama gets the nomination, Nader would likely get less than one percent of the vote again. My prediction anyway."

I completely disagree. Bob must really think that the Democratic Party was completely behind John Kerry and satisfied with his candidacy in 2004. I personally begrudging voted for him, yet, magically, the parties lukewarm and antipathetic feelings for him didn't turn out a huge Nader alternative vote. Again, he only got 0.4% and again, this question is about Nader. I do not understand why Obama people are usurping this discussion for shameless off-topic plugs that have no concrete rationale behind them.

Yes, Nader should be given equal time. Not only will he bring serious and critical issues to the table to be discussed, thankfully he is not owned by corporations. Perhaps it would be a breath of fresh air and a challenge to the candidates that are becoming more and more beholding to the corporations. Let's be sensible: these are not the best qualified people this country could put forth as possible presidents. Furthermore, this race is not over. It's just beginning

I believe it would be good to give him one minute per year. Why would the news media want to help Nader throw another election? This man runs every four years, for what? I think the fine news media outlets need to stop him in his tracks this time, it is the only way to stop him from doing what we all know he is trying to do. I believe he works for the republican party and this is the legal loophole to use to throw elections.

The system needs to be overhauled. No one should be able to sit back and look at the candidates during the entire process of the contest, then in the last hour decide to run for president. If you do not sign up to run for president within a certain time limit, then you should lose your chance to run. This is the most rediculous system I have seen in my life.

If it were Barak, whom I support, I would feel the same as I do. America needs to wake up to Nader and finally get rid of him and his tricks, he is not for the people, he is for destroying what is suppose to be a fair system of choosing a president and we continue to allow this to happen.

What a joke!

Please don't waste time on Ralph Nader, this election is much to important to get distracted by a jerk like him.

Nader should get all the time he deserves…from the innermost circle of Hell. No one, not Bush, not Cheney, not Rumsfeld, has done more harm to America (and the world) than Ralph Nader. Without Nader none of them would have gotten the chance to do the damage they have done.

I thin he should be given a good amount of air time. If it causes the "real" canidates to start addressing the issues he raises it about time.

Wolf, I believe he should get zero air time; at this juncture it is Obama and (only to be fair) Clinton, who deserve air time … the candidates that have run for over a year, spent so much $$$$$$$ and are having to defend themselves against random email and television attacks need and deserve time — not someone who just jumped in to rattle things.

Please give him just as much as any of the other candidates. He throws up great issue's that all the candidates should address for us the people…

He deserves no coverage. He has an out of control ego. Don't feed it.
Leave the primary coverage to the real candidates. They've earned it.

I think he deserves as much as any other third party candidate would receive. Just because he's incompetent and is doing the "consumers" that he cares about so much an injustice by taking votes from the democratic party and allowing McCain, who has already demonstrated his incompetency when it comes to the economy and has essentially promised this country that we will be in Iran if he is in office to take the presidency, doesn't mean that he should receive less airtime.

None. Nader is irrelevant. He had his 15 minutes of fame (a couple of times) and can't force himself to move on (or retire gracefully).
Giving Nader any media coverage will only distract from the important dialogue between and amongst candidates who, at least, have some hope of gaining the power to act on their ideas.

I wouldn't give him a single segment at any time throughout the end of the primary and to the end of the general election in November.

Is there really a standard amount of time we should give to comic relief? When you say Ralph Nader you gave away the punch-line so in this case no—no time is required. Ignore him.

I think Ralph Nader running again is a joke. It is really not even worth
mentioning. I agree with Jack Cafferty— He should not get any air time
or attention from the media.

Nader should get sufficient time to make his case against the flagrant corporate abuses in every area of American society, including the MSM. Except for cameo appearances, John Edwards campaign was nearly blacked out entirely by the MSM, denying him access to the forum he needed to make his case. Thus he was forced to drop out of the primary race.

Now Nader is next for the dim-out treatment (as Jack Cafferty has already promised today.) Corporate America is the ruination of our society , and unless and until there is a firm reversal, including reigning in the absolute power of the MSM to dictate what news will inform the electorate (e.g., restore the Fairness Doctrine,") Nader's voice MUST BE HEARD to inform the public leading to November 4, 2008.

Thomas Harries
Johnstown, PA

You should give him no time at all. He just a waste of time and effort of the American people.

NADER SHOULD JUST SUPPORT A CANDIDATE & STAY ON THE SIDELINES, WHATS WRONG W/THIS MAN? GOING SENILE?

Give him as much time as you do for Gravel, who has just as much of a chance of winning.

Ralph Nader should get zero air time.

Nader is not a viable candidate. He has as much chance as Lyndon LaRouche ever did. I can't help but feel that this is simply ego. If Nader actually cared about the country, he would make more noise during the time between elections. Is he hoping for government money to help his "campaign?" Don't give him a minute. His day has come and gone. His 15min of fame is over - let someone new shout some "crazy" I really enjoy some of the other candidates that have dropped out - put them back on. They still have entertaining ideas. Nader is too many generations away from relevant.

Nader got 0.4% of the vote the last time around. How much air time is Gravel getting? Ron Paul? I've already seen more about Nader than about these two combined…

Answer: None.

Wolf,

While Ralph has his heart in the right place it's time for his to stick to what he does best. What that exactly is we're never quite sure.

If you're really looking to give him air time I'd suggest you offer him the ooportunity to comment everytime you quote Ron Paul.

Michael M.

Toronto, ON.

Nothing - as should be the policy for Bloomberg or anybody else who would decide to jump into the race now, a year after Obama and Clinton started and after all of the candidates, Republican and Democratic have worked so hard to get to this point.

That said, it hasn't been fair for the media not to have given Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee the same kind of coverage - they have been in the race and they are still in. The media should have also given more coverage to Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and the others who have since dropped out.

Zero airtime. The reason for airtime is to air views of realistic national candidates. It may be unfortunate that he does not have any realistic national chances, but that's the way it is.
Another option is to base it on national poll numbers once the final race is decided. If he is less than a specific % of the national polls, he needs to be excluded (similar to Germany, where if a party does not acquire a percentage of national vote, restrictions are placed on the candidate / party).
The need to air legitimate views of all legitimate candidates needs to be balanced by the candidates need to run/ potential to win / effect on diluting other candidates discussions / distractions.
For all Naders ranting about the other candidates not doing much, I didn't see much of him the last eightyears either!

No, Nader should NOT get equal airtime. He is not a viable candidate and it's unfair to the other candidates who have worked tirelessly on this history making campaign. He's just trying to stir up the pot and it's annoying. Cafferty's remarks about Nader spoiling Al Gore's run and the 1 trillion dollar war hit the nail on the head.

Please do NOT give Nader air time! Ralph knows that his spoiler potential is the only way his out-of-step ideas will see the light of day.

I remember his platform when he ran during the Gore/Bush election. Back then he said either way you vote, it's the same thing: "Republicrats" was his generic term for Democrats and Republicans. After he spoiled the Democratic victory and we endured 8 years of Bush administration failures, can he reallty claim that both parties would have been the same?

Al Gore would have out-greened the Green Party by ten fold. I voted for Nader once, because I wanted change. Now I see that most Green party principles match the agenda of the Democrats. Nader is the past. The only real canidate of change is BARACK OBAMA!

Butt out Nader, you better not ruin this for our country!!!

Wolf, Nader will be a marginal candidate, but history will markedly remember his candicacies. His and Perot's willingness to challenge the status quo of a 2-party system that has completely failed this country. Every 4 years we are allotted the option to choose between the lesser of two evils. Doesn't, no shouldn't democracy offer more? What is it about the Democratic-Republican stranglehold we have been under for so many years? We once had Whigs, Democratic Republicans(sweet irony:), etc. So, why must these two parties continually be placed in the feeding tube of the conscience of this country?

Nader is good guy and honest but this coountry always vote same crook and lier , shame on us,that why we get scew up by NAFTA FIASCO 30 million illegal running wild

None at all! The man is a caricature of himself..

I'd like to take this opportunity and forum to announce my candidacy for President.
CNN should give me AT LEAST as much coverage as you give Ralph Nader.

bob roswell, ga

PS. I expect ZERO coverage Wolf

With all due respect, Wolf, I think the larger concern is how much you have been choosing to insert yourself into the narrative of these campaigns. If you were a more professional journalist, you would stop making the center of each debate and/or situations such as this one, an excuse to put yourself in the limelight - and instead, do your job, by covering the news. Ralph Nader has no legitimacy even being discussed on a national platform, until he secures all of the necessities to be a part of a national campaign. Until that happens, no one should care what he does. It's just an opportunity to create hype or added conflict - one that you typically choose to embrace, much to the chagrin of your viewing public. My advice: Be a professional before people stop watching you. Focus on topics that matter and debate questions that are pertinent, not polarizing, before all of us switch to another network outright. I've seen correspondents on E! News that are less self-absorbed and more objective.

Nader should get as much air time as he has in the polls.

Give him ZERO time or negative amount of time if it is possible to do so. He is a spoiler. He clearly destroyed Al Gore in 2000 and now he is about to destroy Barrak Obama or Hillary Clinton (whoever gets the nomination) in 2008. Clearly Ralph Nader dislikes both democrats and republicans ——- why doesn't he just go along with the lesser of the two evils which has to be democrats in anybody's eyes, tsy out of the race and not spoil it for the democrats.

Why should he get any time until he is on the ballot in some states? Anybody can say they are running for President. 28 people were on the Democratic Presidential Primary Ballot in Arizona - how many of them did you talk about? And, at least they were on the ballot.

Nader's popularity is, as they say, "statistically insignificant" and his candidacy should be taken about as seriously.

Everyone who runs deserves airtime, and I find it very sad that only now when the race is essentially Clinton-Obama-McCain are media representatives asking "how much airtime should we give a particular candidate"? Before John Edwards dropped out of the race, he cited the lack of media attention given to his platform, but this question was not posed then. If you ask me, your question is too little, too late.

In this, the first day after Ralph Nader announced his run, he has had quite a lot of news time, and he has used that time to viciously and dismissively attack both Democratic candidates. In my opinion, one who waits until the last minute and then enters the race only to spew negatives about the candidates who have been speaking to Americans for months, deserves no air time. I hope that the media declines to give him a platform for his destructive egomania.

Years ago in some marathon (NY?), somebody jumped into the race a mile or so from the finish line. Was that fair to the athletes who had trained so long and had run so hard (26+ grueling miles)?

No. Ralph Nader is a slimeball, has nothing meaningful to say and deserves no time or attention.

to be fair he must get some time, but he is just a distraction to
the race, a thief

How about this? Cover the news that you and the other professional journalists at CNN think is newsworthy. If Ralph Nader does something newsworthy, cover it. Clearly, "newsworthy" is subjective, but it's definitely not the same thing as "entertaining", as so often seems to be the case with corporate-owned media. Anyway, the answer to your question of how much time CNN should give Ralph Nader? It's not my job to answer that question but certainly no less than it gives to Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton.

-Dan Manes, San Diego, CA

All candidates should get equal air time. If Nadar really has as little chance to win as people say, then it won't matter that he gets the same amount of time as the Democrats and Republicans. However, the political process consists of more than the red of Republicans and the blue of Democrats. The white of the independents needs to be heard also, no matter how unpopular.

Nader has not chance to win. He maybe will get some minutes on TV, because is the "third one" and everybody remember what happened in Florida 8 years ago. He cant make a shadow over Obama as well who will be the next president of USA.

The data are clear based on his showing in 2000 and 2004 — as a non-viable candidate, he should get little to no air time.

Since he got 0.4% of the vote last time, how about 0.4% of the coverage? Yes, I'm still bitter about 2000 and I'm tired of seeing him every four years, I don't care what he's done or what he stands for. I can't really blame him personally for the George Bush debacle, since it's really the fault of the people who wasted their votes on Nader and cost Gore Florida, but it sure is tempting to blame him.

As a third party "candidate" is he on the ballots anywhere? Will he be? Should he be given more time than Ron Paul, who is a major party candidate? Did Ron Paul get 15 minutes on Meet The Press? Our nation has developed and fleshed-out a party system over many generations for selecting a President. Mr. Nader chooses not to participate in that system, but to thumb his nose at it instead. How much time would you give to Rush Limbaugh if he announced as an Independent candidate, catering to the right instead of the left? The question should be one of legitimacy, and Mr. Nader has none at this point. He cannot win the election. Unlike Ross Perot, Mr. Nader does not know when to stop feeding his ego at the expense of the electorate.

There are a number of third party candidates who have been in the running for the past year and with this one ticker article Nader already has more media attention than they could ever hope to have.

At this point, with Nader having received less than 1% of the vote in 2004, CNN has already given him more attention than he rightfully deserves. Unless he does something to show that he may actually be relevant in the 2008 election you should his campaign like the vanity run that it is.

He should get less airtime than Ron Paul does. I think Paul has more popular support.

How much time? None - of course. He'll get under one percent of the vote, and the general public is already familiar with his shtick from past campains. Keep the focus where it's due - on the candidates who have a real shot.

The problem here is separating the man from the message. Corporate greed, outright theft of billions in public monies in Iraq and degradation of our environment for a short term boost on quarterly profits ought to be part of every major candidates' attention.These are all worthy of as much airtime as is needed to bring them to the attention of the voters. I realize Nader runs to bring these issues to life and I respect (and even voted) for him. However, even Don Quixote can be tiring after a while.

How much time do you devote to Mike Gravel, who is still on the Democratic ticket. Exactly, None. Why should Nader get anymore than that?

Nader who ?

The two party system has a long tradition in American history. At the same time, the impact of third parties have influenced the United States to pursue women's suffrage, civil rights, and much more. Although he may not currently have the support of the current Democratic and Republican candidates, he advocates for many of the ideals and principles of the American public. His voice needs to be heard in order to have an open and productive discussion on the direction of America. The media has a vital role in this discussion and should therefor provide Nadar with the same media coverage as the other candidates. Failure to do so would be undemocratic.

Nader should get the same amount of time as any other candidate.
Why would you even need to ask the question? Don't we stand on the belief that we are all equal? At least, we'd all like to believe that at some point in our lives.

We are ALL HUMAN BEINGS, and that's the only label that is acceptable. I am very sick and tired of slapping a "label" of some kind on everyone!

How much air time for Nader? Zero.

I don't like special interests and corporate lobbyists in Washington either. I have always been an environmentalist.

Should I throw my hat in the ring because I think that Clinton or Obama won't address the issues enough to satisfy me?

Nader has done nothing to contribute politically. He only criticizes - like all of us. He deserves as much attention as Mike Gravel.

CNN tends to lean toward the Dems. This guy is bad for them. Why hurt the Dems by giving this guy much notice? Yes, he is a "news item", but his chances of getting elected are nil. I am a man 58 years of age. I remember Nader years ago when he was a pioneer of sorts for consumer rights. He had a much higher national profile back then. I imagine many younger people have never heard of him. I certainly don't think he bears daily reporting on how his campaign is going. No one cares. Most liberal types that would support Nader, would probably find either of these very liberal and progressive thinking (as far as Democratic types are concerned) Democractic canditates, acceptable. If not, they are very naive. This is the closest they will probably ever come to seeing "their" kind of candidate having a realistic chance to win the Presidency. db

Im glad that you are asking everyone's opinion on this. During the early stages of the primaries, i felt like many of the minor candidates were all but ignored. I hope that nader will be given more time then that. People should be aware of what he stands for, let him talk about his platform and why he would be the best candidate rather then just showing him to have him defend his candidacy all the time.

By throwing his hat in the ring, he should get whatever air time he can afford but by no means should the media give him much attention by entering such a tight race so late. He's in it to mess things up, for someone that knows he will never win. He's just another Huckabee. GIVE UP!!!

Give him as much airtime as you give Hillary…None

Give him little to no time. It's a complete waste because he has no real chance at winning and if anything, will only distract people from the candidates who are actually electable and what is more important: what THEY have to say. He seems like an egotistical person straight off the boat from fantasy land. If he really wants to make a difference he should run for senate or congress - he doesn't really want to make a difference he just wants the attention. If he wanted to be a credible candidate he should have entered the race a LONG time ago.

He is a Candidate. ALL candidates should get the SAME TIME, PERIOD. This is what was wrong with the beginning debates…….everyone was NOT treated equal within the debates OR by the Media. Almost like the Media is choosing who is actually running. That's not the Democracy I know and love.

Wolf, you should give Mr. Nader AS MUCH time as you give to both Obama (who I support) and Clinton–he will raise issues that directly affect every American (e.g. Global Warming, a topic that mainstream media has discussed <1% of the time; toxins in food and products; campaign financing; etc.) and hold the other candidates accountable that the mainstream media could never do based on their relationship with (both in ownership and sponsorship) corporate America.

If you perceive a groundswell of public support behind Nader, give him air time. But you won't. In our two-party system, there is a presumption that voters will only be interested in the major candidates. This presumption is rebuttable, as with Ross Perot and Teddy Roosevelt. But the burden is on a 3rd-party candidate to show he is for real before he gets rewarded w/ valuable air time.

Wolf,
Am not sure. But I am certain about the role CNN and other media have played to hijack a well poised Hillary campaign. Time for soul searching.

I do not think he should be on the air other than in relation to another candidate responding to his concerns and criticisms. He knows he won't win the election so his candidacy is particularly selfish at such a crucial time.

The same amount of time that CNN and MSNBC should get for the worst election cycle in my 78 years. It is disgraceful the way you two networks have tried to scew and rig this election to fit your favoritism. ABOUT 20 YRS EACH would be a good start.

Give him his fair share…about 0.4% of the total time.

Nadar Knows he will never win, he's just being controversial for the sake of controversy. Also he needs to keep the going rate of his speaking fees up. In other words, he needs to be relevant. Keeps the cash rolling in.

He needs to get as much time as the republican and democrat candidates get. Seriously, it's an atrocity that this country doesn't have more then 2 major political parties representing it and a big part of that problem is the media. They concentrate on the democrats and republicans because that's who will ultimately win the election, obviously I get that. But, it's time this country had more then 2 choices for President, and that they’re all given the opportunity to be taken seriously, and until the media can make time for more then 2 choices how are the American people supposed to?

Plus, this guy always has a different perspective. Who is anyone to say its wrong? He brings up some very good points and he cares about people. Let him speak and let him be heard.

Nader won't even get one percent of the vote, UNLESS the media, in their zeal to see him as viable, a wild card, etc. give him the free exposure that he craves and a legitimacy that he demonstrably doesn't deserve. Please don't let him distract you–or the voters–from the literally life and death issues that are at the heart of this election.

.4% of all stories should be about Ralph. 1 out of every 250.

give him equal time.

i dont need to defend why i say that other than that we deserve to hear what he has to say (just as we deserved to hear what kucinich and ron paul had to say but who were effectively shut out by big media)…

Ralph Nader has every right to run for president. In fact, he has every right to garner as many votes as he can for himself. But, having said that, he does not have the right to undermine the efforts of the leading presidential candidates. If he wants to talk about issues that are important to him then he can. But it should be the people, not the media, who give him that platform. Ron Paul was able to earn media attention due to his fund raising and enthusiastic support from the people. Nader's attention is due to the fact that this will be the fifth time he tries and fails to become president. Nader, while still providing a different perspective, can no longer be treated as a serious presidential candidate and therefore should not be given air time unless he earns it by saying or doing something that the American people feel is relevant.

Aw come on! At 74, this will likely be Nader's last run. He deserves coverage, if for no other reason than to remind Americans that this is, in principle, a democracy, and we sorely need to hear from a third school of thought.

Nader's message that the two parties are arm in arm carried some weight in '96 and in 2000. Since then the major parties have been heading in opposite directions. It's obvious to everyone but Nader that there is now a huge difference in the platforms of the parties. I voted for Nader in 2000 and bitterly regretted it after the Bush debacle.

Who??..Oh no..Why is Nader running again??…somebody please tell him that his quest for an ego boost is going to put another republican in office…
Great…we [democrats] were riding easy street to the white house till now…please dont let this guy ruin it for the whole country….AGAIN

He should get little or no time until he can show he actually has a following who will vote for him. Do you give air time to other fringe candidates, whethe they be socialist or what not? Why do you in the media give him attention? To hype the story of how he may yet be the spoiler. Not this time. Thank God for DVR, so I can just go past anything I see about him.

This is technically his 5th time involved in the process of running for the presidency. His showing every year, except 00, were dismal, at best.

Considering the votes he received in 04 were about as many as the Libertarian candidate, you should give them equal coverage. Meaning: practically nothing.

Wolf,

Nader should get airtime only if he pays for it in the form of a political ad…otherwise, he should get NONE…the man is irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!

Hi, Wolf!

I think we are all tired of Ralph Nader. If he got 15 minutes with Tim Russert then he has had his air time! Don't give him any more. We don't need him pulling away Democratic votes.

Well, considering that Ron Paul has been in this from the start and hasn't gotten much airtime at all, I think Nader should get even less than Paul has gotten. NONE!

Give him as much press as you gave Ron Paul over the last 2 weeks. Zero!

yawn

Wolf, this is a good question. Nader is in the race to criticise all and everyone. In my opinion there is no reason giving him more than 10 minutes at all. Ok, he ought to say, why he personaly now gets in the race. It's ok, if he'll takes the time to explain what makes HIM the best presidential candidate in the 2008 elections. If he only spooks around with criticism to the other candidates, the time is not worth it. At all I hope this debate will not be a mud-wrestling round.

This just goes to show (like with John Edwards), the amount of media time you get determines how well you do. John Edwards was by far the best candidate, but he got little air time because he wasn't an "exotic" candidate. He had no need to fight with the other two and that showed great patience and maturity, but he also can play rough if he has to, something you need to be able to do as President.

three or four minutes.
if that.

Nader's time has long since come and gone.

And sadly, he got just what he wanted - a Bush presidency.

every point that mr. nader mentions in the tim russert interview is not only valid, it is also of critical importance to national interests to expound. mr. obama may see some of the points as valid and others as fringe issues, yet every one needs to be brought to the fore as legit