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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 legitimate. for examples, i agree with mr. nader that the israeli/palestinian conflict must not be off the table in the primary campaigns; the question may be the timing of bringing it up. it could be so divisive that mr. obama would like to have kept it on the backburner so as to not divide his constituents. (also, nuclear power is not a source of clean energy, it poses threats to national security and its demerits need to be aired.) mr. nader consistently brings up what other candidates in the main have rejected as talking points so this is why he needs to be given as much attention as the other candidates.

let the voters decide. give every candidate equal access to the public and the debate will be more substantial, without media censorship. otherwise the access to media is based partially on the amount of advertising spending by each candidate, yet truly the airwaves must belong to the people. we deserve to have all ideas freely debated by all serious contenders, including those of the green party and ron paul. open up the process and invite lively exchanges of ideas. so far the questions from the debate moderators have stymied a discussion such as mr. nader promotes.

As much as I like Ralph Nader (I voted for him in 2000), I believe it would be a wasted vote this time. However his corporate views and more important his stance on cutting defense spending are very important to me and I feel deserves more air-time.

All the major candidates from both parties have been working for over a year, putting their names and faces into the public eye. They've earned air time. Nader wants to gain some quick attention in the final stretch. Cynthia McKinney, Mike Gravel, Alan Keyes, and all the "other party" candidates deserve more air time than Ralph Nader because they've been campaigning and doing the work.

The Initial 15minuntes you awarded him should be all he gets. One thing we do wrong as a nation with our political system is, "we allow third party spoilers at the later hour", and that should be a big NO, hence to AIR TIME for Mr. Nader Wolf. If all he's going to ever get is 2% of the vote, then he is just making a mockery of our political system.

An arrogant, egotistical man who does not know when to say "enough is enough". Why is he trying to horn in on the already complex race between Obama and Clinton. Who does he think he is. He is pathetic. Poor man, just can't let it go.

Nadar is a self absorbed egotistical person. He is delusionnal to think that Americans should take him seriously, not to mention that he is 76 years old. History will record him as the spoiler candidate, most un American of Americans.

You ask a stupid question. He is a candidate so should receive fair and equal attention maybe with out the CNN stamp of failure like you are giving Clinton. CNNs bias towards Clinton has been very evident and irritating. If I wanted bias, I would just tune into FOX news. Did you really need to ask this idiot question? I though you were a pro.

I think he should get ten years… in prison. he must be a republican lover at heart the way he keeps throwing whammys at the dems. What a putz.

As much time as you can. This is not a two party country. The Democrats and Republicans have taken over our electoral process and third party candidates are shut out. Try to imagine a three way debate with Nader, Obama and Clinton and see how much more engaging and healthy it would be for our democratic process. They wouldn't give Kucinich a chance at the debates because the debates are again run by the corporations ( favoring a two party system) not the League of Women Votes as in the past. Our entire democracy is being dictated by all the lobbyists and corporate influence, drug companies etc,. and Ralph Nader needs a forum for his views.
The dumbing down or sloganeering politicans is depressing and we near a real candidate taking on the white house for sale status quo.

Nader in 2008!

Regarding Nader-I think the news media have to give him a chance to explain himself. The problem I have is that he seems to have little regard with anyone who doesn't go along with all of his ideas. He knows he can't win but pretends he's not trying to be a spoiler. It's permissible in sports, but I don't have much respect for it in a presidential campaign. It's too important.

He already has gotten far more than he deserves.

Please drop the story for the good of our country.

Obama 08

You should give Nader as much time as the other candidates. Love or hate him, his ideas are worth talking and thinking about. An election is a time for the country to consider its future. It helps to have views like Nader's in the debate. It should not matter if he is a "major or minor" candidate.

We should be thinking about the ideas not the people.

I would have preferred to have had the chance to listen more to all of the candidates from the very beginning – but the media must decide how much coverage a person (and his/her ideas)gets. Why? Money!

Well, let's see: according to your figures, he got 2.7% of the popular vote in 200, and 0.4% in 2004. Lets be kind and average them. This comes out to 1.55%. As there are roughly 16 hours in a news cycle, we'll give him exactly that percentage – we'll even round it up to 1.6 % – for a total of just over fifteen minutes per cycle, which is pleasingly close to the traditional 'fifteen minutes' of fame. During this fifteen minutes he is allowed to discuss the possibility of his entering the race, but the time does count, giving him all of a (deserved) five minute chunk to try and convince us that voting for him is not merely throwing away your vote and staying an extra 52,594,560 minutes in Iraq, which is exactly the next 100 years.
Does this answer your question?

He's already had too much time.Put him in a Corvair and tell him to hit the road.

Ralph Nader will probably get less than 1% of the vote again. Maybe 1% or less of the air time would be appropriate if it doesn't look like his campaign seems to be getting traction. Nader is not an unknown who needs to be given a chance to be discovered. So, give him a little time at first, but if he doesn't get support quickly cut back, way back.

Mr. Nader is unlikely to garner a significant amount of votes, less than both Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Mike Huckabee on the GOP side of things. He should get less time than Mr. Paul, which at this stage of the game is barely anything. The media needs to focus on the major candidates from both parties. Mr. Nader may have some good ideas, but like his peer on the GOP side (Mr. Paul), they are too extreme for the general voting public.

You thought Ross Perot was a "credible candidate" in 1992?? Are you out of your mind?

I can't figure Nader out–if he cares so much about this country, then why does he undermine the 2-party system by stealing votes from the Dems? He's never won an election, he never will and he knows he won't. I think it's purely an ego trip for him. He's had his 15 minutes of fame already–leave it at that!

Ralph Nader is a smart man and he should get about ten minuets each day. He is a spoiler and that is all. If he really wanted to be constructive he would raise issues to the Public during the Primaries and especially after party candidates are confirmed and the debates begin for the General Election.

I think the trend from 2004 will continue and he'll receive a small percentage of the popular vote. Ultimately, Mr. Nader understands the reality of the situation. But, I think we have to remember that he is looking out for consumers and regular people. He also knows that with even a small percentage of the vote, he wields tremendous political power. This is the biggest opportunity for him to push the issues that matter to regular people in a corporate dominated society. And, he only gets the chance every four years. If he didn't "make 'em sweat," we wouldn't listen. What is more important, the issues, or which "red" or "blue" corporate "yes person" we elect? He thinks they are indistinguishable. So, ask yourself this, if you were Mr. Nader – what would you do?

Wolf, I am amazed @ how biased the CNN coverage is favoring Obama! I know you as a fair, open minded, reporter-but give us a break,every time you talk politics,you lead with pictures of Obama, and all reports are slanted in his favor. Is there nothing positive that the Clinton campaign says or does that warrants any praise. I expect more from you and your network!! Look @ the last 5 days of your coverage! No way it's fair or unbiased!!

Why would the media or anybody lose time to talk about a person who stands no chance of winning an election? His candidacy can only hurt this country. Had he not been a candidate in 2000, we would have had a better election and a fair contest between Al Gore and Bush… and of course, as a consequence we would have had a more competent, better president.

What do you mean "Give" him? The only "give" gotten from CNN is that you think the race for the Democratic nominee is over and that Hillary should resign. Will you "Give" Nadar as difficult a time as you give to the Clinton campaign? I doub't it. This would not be so questionable if you just "gave" the viewers the entire truth and not the Obama slant that is our daily dose…

Nader's candidacy is a tasteless joke. Beware the unforeseen repercusions, as in Florida.

How about the same time CNN gives to other presidential candidates? After all, isn't the media supposed to provide a medium for the candidates (especially those with little financial support) to describe their plans and ideas? Otherwise, it is the media that votes… CNN should not abuse its power by covering only the candidates it thinks will win the presidential election, but should instead offer equal coverage to all registered presidential candidates.

Nader is not a credible candidate by any stretch of the imagination. He should not receive any type of "equal time" treatment. To give him air time is patently unfair to the many, many marginal candidates who want the same air time for themselves.

he shouldn't get any time. the man is a nuisance he is not serious and shouldn't be allowed, even on a dog catchers [ballot] the loser. everything he's championed there's more of today than ever. is he a republic tool? is he ross perot jr? or the joker from batman? you decide

Give him ten to fifteen minutes at a time once a week. Why? Because Nadar will criticize EACH of the candidates in a way that the they will not criticize one another, and in a way that will widen the topics the candidates have to address. Obama and Clinton are carefully controlling what they say and which topics they discuss. So is McCain. But an outside candidate, with a different take on everything, will bring out some issues and highlight some angles we will not hear without his perspective. Nadar has already made a name for himself with his auto safety contributions that have truly changed and improved life in the U.S. He may not be true Presidential material, but he has a voice that is respected even by people who wouldn't vote for him. AND he will bring up issues, even the media doesn't want to bring up, for fear of being accused by the mainstream candidates of bias.

Let him speak. Let Ron Paul speak. Let Mike Huckabee speak.

Ralph Nader is tough, clear, and concise. I like him for those qualities and I think he makes an interesting guest. As for his legitimacy as a candidate, he's not in the same universe with the top teir candidates.
Not having a chance is a real advantage in terms of being free to say precisely what you mean.

Ralph Who?

NONE!

As a conservative and a Republcan, I'm tempted to say "give him equal time" with the Republican and Democratic Party nominees … and let him chip away a bit of liberal support from Clinton or Obama. Honesty compels me to say, however, that he has already gotten too much attention. He was a spoiler in 2000, a footnote in 2004 … and this year he is a minor distraction, not even marginal. His train left the station long ago … and he missed it.

Ralph Nader attends to my needs for hope, authenticity, and using power in partnership. I am torn between him, Cynthia, and Barack. I trust Ralph, and I care about what he has to say. I am more interested in news media that helps consider what Ralph brings to the table.

When I was young, big business owned government.
Today, big business owns government.
Most of our major problems can be traced to this.
Why give airtime to anyone that is *in* the government, but not done anything about this?
When's the last time one of these senators that promise "change", changed that?

You've already given him as much time as he deserves.
He's got no real chance of winning, especially this time around. All he'll do is potentially give McCain the presidency by drawing a portion of the true "independent" voters away from the Democrats – just like he did in Florida in 2000.
Thanks Ralph, for giving us a really good shot at continued failure.

I appreciate all that Mr. Nader has done for the citizens of the United States of America in the area of consumer safety. I thank God for seat belts. Seat belts have saved thousands of lives. Twenty-two years ago a seat belt saved my life. But Mr. Nader has ZERO chance of winning the the presidency of the United States of America at this time. He would have had a better chance of winning the presidency 30 years ago. I would like to see Mr. Nade return to being a consumer advocate. I would like to see him work to keep harmful drugs, toys, and foods off the market.

In 2000, his running for president was a statement that made sense. In 2004, it made less sense. In 2008, it makes no sense, it looks more like an ego trip. I don't think he will steal too many votes either way, but he will insist on getting his fair share of attention even though there are relatively few who have the patience to listen to more than 30 seconds of his drivel.

You should give him air time. You should also give time for the Libertarian candidate and if he runs Bloomberg/Hagel (or however they sort it out.) The big problem is that a lot of people feel both the Democratic and Republican Parties seem to have decided they are entitled to have the field all to themselves. We need candidates who will force Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain to defend all of their positions. If they feel that Ralph Nader is wrong, then they should face him down in open debate. Which might be difficult since both major parties have rigged the system to prevent real open debate. Platitudes are fine at a retirement dinner, but we're talking about the future of the country. ALL ISSUES MUST BE DISCUSSED. To many people have gotten lazy or depressed by the lack of legitimate political discourse in the United States. I did not risk my life for 20 years in the service to listen to unintelligent babble by all of the major candidates. Get Nader and all of the others on your program.

Wolf,
We have to remember that Nader is just as much a candidate as the Democratic and Republican nominee. He is entitled to just as much time as they are. You have to also remember, the news media is there to report the news and not to make the news, a mater that all of you seem to forget.
Ralph

While I respect his right to run, I see no reason the media should give him air time unless he demonstrates credibility as a contender, with his name on the ballet in fifty states. As another writer said, treat him as any other lesser candidate. Having said that, I mistrust his motives and feel he is doing this for self-aggrandizement as much as anything. I don't think the media owes him any favors.

Give him some time. He's a major name that attracts attention (though not always votes). It's time for us to stretch this one-party, two faction system a bit. Show us that you take democracy serious enough to present to us a non-corporate candidate.

At 74yrs I would think that he should get one day at a time. Nader is a joke and has been and always will be. If he want to change things, why hasn't he made a run for Congress to make a start there. He doesn't want to be president because we only hear from him at election time and late in it. I would never give him my vote, I might as well give it to McCain if I would do something like that.

As a legimate candidate, Ralph Nadar deserves to have his opinion aired by the media – even if I don't like what he's saying. Coming into the race this late in the game and with his track record, however, I think the 15 minutes of time he was given is sufficient. I'm one of those still angry that he enabled W to win. I think we all remember him saying that a vote for either candidate would mean the same thing. Wow, was he ever wrong on that one. And I see no evidence that he would be able to move things through Congress as an independent. Now, perhaps more than ever before, is a time we all need to come together – Republicans and Democrats – and I've only seen one candidate who can make that happen. Thank you Barack Obama!

Naturally, it depends if he has something of real substance to say but I'd give him minimal air time because we've heard from him in this forum for decades. CNN needs to focus on the candidates with a real chance to be president or candidates like Ross Perot who add a significant voice (new with significant support).

How many times does he have to run before he realizes that the country is not ready to back an independant.

I wish we could do away with the party affiliation and vote for the best liar out there. We blame the president, no matter what party, for all that is wrong in this country. We need to hold Congress accountable. These are the people that make good or bad laws, mostly bad ones.

I think i'm split on my opinion of this. On one hand i think anyone should be able to run for President if they can find the money and support to be viable.
But on the other i'm a Democrat and am sick of this. He technically gave us Bush in 2000. Thankfully he was just a fly on the wall in 2004 and hopefully he'll be a gnat on the wall this round.

He should receive the same amount of airtime the news media afforded the likely candidacies of Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, Richardson, Biden, Paul etc. Minimal to none. The media should avoid what Mr. Nader wants – which is to have his candidacy provided with free airtime and publicity solely because he chooses to make "qoutable" remarks about the frontrunners. Mr. Nader has every right to run for the presidency. However, much the same way as the media's coverage of less likely candidates continues to lessen, so should Mr. Nader's candidacy be given short shrift.

Can't someone "Commit" Ralph Nader for the next 8 months for being delusional! He could pick a canidate and support that person and even advise. But he is definately delusional. Please, now that he has his 5 minutes in the lime light. Save the enviroment and turn him off!

i.e…. Wolf believes the media should be in charge of how much time US Presidential candidates each get..

You said it correctly, he is, "a marginal candidate with no real chance of winning"

Ralph will get the votes of some of those who are on the losing side of the Hillary/Barack competition (mine if Hillary wins) but he has no chance of winning.

In this election CNN and other news "providers" have marginalized Dr Paul and his run for president. How much coverage should you give Ralph? I would say to only give him 10 percent of the coverage you gave Dr. Paul.

If by airtime, you are talking about how much time on your programs to devote to covering him, I wouldn't give him much. 2.7% in 2000 was one thing, but 0.4 in 2004 is another. I don't see him doing any better than that. Considering that Obama appears to be the "change/reform" candidate this election cycle, I suspect Nader's support will continue to dwindle. He doesn't offer the voters anything new this year.

wolf you a low life
go hillary

Give him as much time as you give Huckabee, that is if he doesn't have another job like Huckabee doesn't.

I don't think Nader should be given any time due to the fact of what he did to Gore and this country in 2000, specifically in Florida. He should not be given time to change the minds of any Democratic voters to convert to his side and take votes away from the Democratic nominee. I cannot stand to think about this country having another Republican in office. This country needs help!

Mr. Nader must, at some point, realize he is doing his own cause more harm than good by running for president. How much time does he deserve? If you ask me, he's already had more time than he's ever earned. Do the country a favor and ignore him entirely.

Ben Fairbanks posted: "I'm a registered Democrat, though I vote Republican in national contests exclusively"

So Ben, you're a liar. If you vote Republican exclusively in national elections, you are not a democrat and should not be registered as one.

Oh, and I watched his interview w/ Russert. I agree with Nader in that many Americans want a third party/other than Dem & Repub representation. The problem I have is that Nader thinks he is the best one to fulfill that void. Sure, he has the right to run if he can afford to, that is his choice. In my opinion, he comes across (esp in that interview) as if he is the answer to America's problems.

Please do not let Nader waste any more of our time. Other more qualified candidates, such as John Edwards and Mitt Romney came and went. Why should he be able to just pop in now? I want to get down to the issues between the 2 candidates from each party and them make a decision.

Ralph Nader should be given NO time on the airwaves. He is becoming more and more irrevlevant as the years go by and frankly, if he hadn't spoiled the election in 2000, we would have a vastly different political landscape.

Wolf,
Although I will not be voting for Nader, it is not CNN's responsibility to determine which candidates are legitimate or not; that is the voter's job. I am impressed that Nader is bothering to talk about the issues whereas the dems and republicans are merely talking about each other. You should definitely be giving Nader airtime when he is bringing up important policy notes.
-Sean SF

I understand Nader has the freedom to run as an independent, but given the liklihood that there is no way of him winning, you should spend the time covering the candidates who have a real opportunity to take the White House come next January. Nevermind the potential spoilers. This isn't the year 2000.

Airtime for Nader?…..NONE, zippo, zilch, nada, nil, squat. This guy knew very well that the race in Florida was incredibly close. He achieved everything he could have byt the week of election. If he had pulled out and endorsed Al Gore, this country would have been saved from the disaster that is George W. Bush.

He can keep telling himself that it was not his fault that Al Gore lost but everyone knows the truth. Anything good this man has to say is completely drown out by the colossal and unforgivable error he made in 2000.

His hubris makes him unable to see the tremendous damage he's done to this country. Let me put it more clearly – "Ralph Nader – sit down and shut up!"

He's clearly not as credible as Ross Perot, and has no chance of winning. But that's not what he is about. He is trying to raise support for issues that will pull Democrats back to the left. I totally support his run though I will not vote for him. But I think he deserves enough air time to make his case every now and then. To remind people what he stands for and why he is running. Just enough so people know, and he is not forgotten. It's not necessary he gets equal air time as major candidates.

He will not have nearly the credibility he did in 2000, or even '04. The only attention Nader gets beyond the fringe who would always go for someone like him is from liberals who find the Dem nominee too conservative or uninspiring. If Obama is the nominee, this will not be a problem in '08.

He has every right to run, though, and it is a tricky question: do struggling candidates suffer from lack of media attention, or are they not paid media attention because they're struggling? My opinion: give him his obligatory 5 minutes, but the news should meet the people where they're at, and most voters have no interest in him.

He needs to be covered with similar amounts of coverage to the other three canidates.

It is a cause and effect argument. You say he doesn't have a chance, so you don't cover him. But then the reason he doesn't have a chance, is because you don't cover him.

open up the debate, bring Nader into the mainstream of political discourse.

I'm amazed that you as a professional newsperson would need to ask such a question. Obviously, Nader is viable candidate with ideas that need to be heard and listened to, unless you and CNN are concerned about offending some of your advertising 'biggies' and don't want anyone to really rock the boat.

If he only acheived a 0.4% of the votes in 2004 i am willing to bet he will get less than that in 2008. I would like to see CNN time spent more wiser than throwing it out there for a "spoiler". Yes! a spoiler, and he knows he is nothing more than that.

I think that candidates that have less than 5% of national public support as shown by more than one poll should receive only minimal air time.

Seems any little time given to poor old Ralph Nader would take away from CNN's Obama lovefest time!

Slim to none…. But I know his few supporters will be upset.

Nader should be heard and not excluded. He has that right. Jerry Brown had no chance of winning and he was given air time because he had important ideas to share. The same goes for Ross Perot. Please don't shut Nader out of the process.

I think that he should get the very minimum air time considering the fact that the only reason why he is there is to be a spoiler. he has no intent of running a good, organized campaign nor does he have any plans on how to lead the country. So, being that his sole reason for running is to be a spoiler and put his name out there, he should get very little air time or none at all.
it is very similar to me deciding to run as an independent. How much air time will i get?

Nader will do it again and be a spoiler for Democrats. Since no McCain supporter would vote for Nader, give him lots of air time,

This man does'nt have a chance and is only in the race, to siphon votes from someone. This man is a career spoiler at age 74. Dear Ralph we not not want your prehistoric behind.

Give him no airtime. If Nader messes up the vote for the Democratic candidate, the news media will be to blame for giving him attention. So, my vote is NONE.

Nader should get as much time as it takes me to post this comment.

Ralph N. is bringing up issues you don't raise in debates by your questions. For instance, where do the candidates stand on changes in the civil justice system, a most serious issue on which Obama has cast surprising votes. They seem to have distinct differences in this area, but you never bring it up. Nader does, so I think he serves a valuable purpose and should get generous air time to ask the unasked questions.

I'd say let the national polling determine the extent of coverage he gets. He's nationally known, so it's a fair yardstick. To give him disproportionately greater coverage than other minor third-party candidates would be unfair to the latter. Nader is a no-hoper, and the only way he can create news is again to play the spoiler in swing states. But many Nader voters learned their lesson in 2000: there was a difference between Gore and Bush after all. With each race, Nader becomes a lesser figure. He won't break half a percent of the popular vote this time.

I think as much time as possible. He will force the candidates to address real issues in real time.

He's the reason we got W- That is enough reason right there to disregard him. He won't have the impact this time because in 2000 he went from a Champ to a Chump! We will never forgive, or forget. Damage is done- now we can move on….and Ralph can move OUT.

Easy answers to your three questions:

Zero.
Not at all
No real chance.

Nader is even further to the left than Obama.

…crazy mixup in my last comment, should read, "he should get their votes."

What took him so long? With the media lovefest for Obama and criticism of Clinton the issues are never discussed. Nader will talk about issues.

Okay, in recent years, Wolf, I have tried to tone down my conspiracy 'theorism', but this one smacks of someone on some side somewhere trying to sabotage someone else. Nader, by this late announcement, cannot possibly believe that he will garner enough support to win the nomination. And in the end, with the Democratic race so close, he'll only serve to bring one of these candidates down. We've been here before and I refuse to take Nader seriously. After the 2000 debacle (my first vote in a Presidential election since coming of age in 1998), he cannot possibly believe the Dems have forgiven him. Honestly, I believe this is either about who he wants to handicap more than him allowing the American people to make an informed and fair choice. Nader, sit down!

Nader is a distraction and a nuisance. He doesn't stand a chance. Give him 0 time.

NONE!

He shouldn't get any! Unless you want to do a documentary on OVERSIZEd EGOS! He has no constituency.He will be of no consequence at all.

Mr. Nader is just one of the many perennial names who seek notoriety through putting their names on the ballot. He does not represent a major party, nor is he likely to get more than 1 or 2 percent of the vote, if that. So, please give him no more attention than you would the many other lesser candidates.

None! Zippo! Nada! He's through, history, bad dream.

I'm a registered Democrat, though I vote Republican in national contests exclusively. In 2004, as I remember, most media attention that Ralph Nader got was predicated on or qualified with the sentiment that he was the indirect cause of George Bush's presidency. These constant reminders were, I believe, prejudicial towards Ralph Nader's candidacy and poor form on part of the media. That said, I don't know how deserving Ralph Nader is of media coverage. Four tenths of a percentage points is not a large constituency-I bet its on the same order as write-ins for Micky Mouse. How much attention did the media pay to Bo Gritz? I hope not much. Give Nader coverage proportional to his previous presidential returns-for every 200 stories concerning any of the other candidates, go ahead and offer one for Nader, but don't remind us that he cost Gore the election in 2000.

NONE, unless the 3rd party starts acting like a party, they don't deserve airtime. Even when you give the greens a chance, they fair…take Illinois for instance…they go easier access to the ballot because people were so upset with the choices for Gov. last time around that they had a good turnout., but in the Feb 5th primary they had a dismal amount of participation, showing that they can't organize and they have no chance of success even when given every oppurtunity.

Watch how he does in the polls. Base his airtime off of that. If he pulls in voters like he did in 2000, he could be a factor, and deserves a chance to be heard. However if his campaign turns out like that of 2004, he's not really newsworthy.

I think Mr. Nader has had his "15 minutes". He's not going to even come close to winning and will dilute the outcome by stealing votes from both the R's and the D's. However, I believe the D's will get damaged more from him entering. I am an independent and I want the election to be decided by the people, but between the two nominees not someone who's letting his ego get in the way. USMC (ret.)

For you to even pose the question, "how much air time do we give him?" supports the widespread belief that the media manipulates the news. It certainly sounds like there's some sort of judgmental criteria being applied by some elite decision makers somewhere in the CNN organization, and it even sounds as though "air time" is a privilege that CNN bestows upon the subjects of its reporting.

Look, Nader should get whatever air time he can afford. He should appear on the ballots in any state where he meets the legal qualifications, and if his campaign attracts people, then they should get his votes.

Can Wolf really be so silly (or insulting to his readers) to ask "how much air time should Nader get?"

Ralph Nader has been told by the American people many times that he is not considered presidential material. Mr. Nader is professional narcissist. Why else would he set out, with no chance of winning, to take even one vote away from either Clinton or Obama? Perhaps Mr. Nader expects a nice contribution from McCain ,who most likely is the only American pleased with his decision to run.

He should get the same ammount of time proportionate to the number of votes he got in the lastelection…less than one percent.

Give him time if he can get close to 10% of the national poll. We have heard him many times before. So, if we as a nation want him, he should be able to get close to 10%. if not, he is just a noise maker!

I am an international student in the US and that means I am not going to vote in the primaries nor the general election. After coming to know about Nader and how he spoilt the chances of Al Gore, I personally felt bad. He knows, even this time, that there is no possibility of him coming anywhere close to winning the general election. Unless, he did something significantly different in the past 4 years..he should not be considering running again. This means to say that — Run Nader..if u want..but do something which might help u win…but pls do not run just for the sake of it.

Your doing this in 2000 put republicans at the helm..I know whom you hate more than the democrats at least.

Nader should not get any time because he is not a serious candidate.By his candicacy,both past and present,he is merely pointing out how ridiculous democracy can be and how stupid a lot of voters are.Why would you freely vote for someone who has no desire to be the President,is not preparing to be President and is not qualified to be President?

How about giving him as much air time as you give Rep. Ron Paul or Mike Gravel? Or as much time as you gave Rep. Kucinich, Rep. Hunter and Sen. Dodd or Sen. Biden? Already, the media has decided to collectively ignore Gov. Huckabee, yet for whatever reason, you'll still paying attention to Sen. Clinton, who's won only 3 more states than Huckabee did.

Why are you pretending to care about fairness?

I don't see him as a serious threat to win, but he is a celebrity candidate. and a celebrated consumer advocate. That in itself… sells.

I am curious to see how badly disenfranchised the Democratic Party is. If and when Hillary concedes to Obama, will her supporters flock to Nader out of spite? And/or vice versa?

If Nader garners big numbers in polls, sure. But if he doesn't, then he should get the Ron Paul treatment.

Sorry Ron Paul supporters…

Out of all the CNN anchors, I think you have been the most fair with respect to time given to candidates. I wish Ron Paul had more time and it would be unfair to give Nader more time than has already been given to Ron Paul. The people should know what a candidate stands for so they can make an educated choice. The problem is that most people will rely on water cooler conversations and what other people think rather than making that choice on their own. For people that really want to know about a candidate, they will find out themselves. Your job should be to let everyone know the highlights and where to go for further investigation. Thanks for the chance to voice my opinion!
-Brian

Very little. He has become a laughing stock with no chance of significant influence one way or other over this election. He appears to enjoy and even be addicted to the high which comes with running.
As personal matter aside, since he has very little chance of influencing this election, minimum time to be spent for this candidate.

0 – that's how much air time you should give him.

He shouod get little time. He is less relevant then Ron Paul.

Nader got less than 0.5% of the vote last time around. Does this make him a legitimate candidate in any sense of the word? I don't think so. Of course, if you'd like to be complicit in helping to throw the race to McCain, knock yourself out.

Wolf…. love your show….you always try to be fair and informative

Nader is a non-factor!!!!
he has no credibility except to divide the election
Why waste air time on this joker
he needs to retire permanently!!!
Go way Nader!!!

My suggestion: NO TIME AT ALL.

His 15 minutes on Meet the Press was 15 minutes too many.
He has virtually no constituency at this point, and has had four years to try and establish the third party he claims to care so much about. He didn't lift a finger, just like he didn't lift a finger for the four years before that. Instead, he just jumps in at the last minute, reinforcing the impression that his waste-of-time presidential run is all about ego and attention.

I would suggest giving very minimal time to Ralph Nader. We all know that he is not a serious candidate and will win 1% of the vote or less. How long will it take him to figure out that he is irrelevant?

Waste of time, money and focus. He cannot possibly win and he knows it. It is just a forum for him to get his views out there during a highly visible time for the country. It would be cheaper and possibly more effective to take out daily ads in all the newspapers across the country to make his points.

Wolf,

I have nothing against Ralph Nader except that his political agenda is unrealistic, has not changed, and has proven to be unsuccessful 3 times now, and by large margins. He should be given minimal air time as he is no more than a distraction. Incidentally, as much as I would have liked to see Al Gore win in 2000, claiming that he cost the Dems the election is nonsense. The voters cost Al Gore that election.

He should receive no more airtime than the percentage of the popular vote he garnered in the last election (i.e. less than 3% of the airtime given to Obama, Clinton and McCain). The best way to deflate his misguided ambitions is to let him fade into the background noise.

None.

CNN knows the drill….as much time as the viewers want. I doubt anyone will really care and thus no controversy over airtime.

Hi Wolf:

Ralph Nader's late entrance into the field makes me wonder if his announcement isn't more about bolstering his earning power as a speaker and with his publisher.

He stands no chance of winning, and has not elucidated a credible rationale for his candidacy. At best, he could be a spoiler in the closely contested states – the the advantage of the Republican Party.

Mr. Nader has name recognition, but I'm not sure that he merits any air time. This is a ego trip, pure and simple.

It's a strange dilemma for Democrats, indeed. Many of us would like to see more of Nader, especially those with more anti-corporate and environmentalist leanings. However, we all know he will lose the race. So we're left with this dichotomy: either vote for Nader because he more closely represents your views (and show that there are more than two political camps in this country) OR vote for the candidate you think will likely defeat a Republican (something increasingly important, especially in lieu of Nader's Florida swing in 2000). All this is to say, I'm rather torn on your original question. We want Nader's face out there because it is the most democratically responsible way the media can operate; then again, we don't want repeat of 2000.

The simple answer is – give the candidates who people are most interested in the most air time.

However, figuring out who people are most interested in due to a chicken-and-the-egg problem with media. If the media doesn't cover Nader's presidential run, people won't know about it and won't be interested in following him. If people aren't interested in Nader, they won't want to hear about his presidential run. So, who starts this train rolling?

As a media organization, there is a lot of power that you have. In my opinion, media should spend a bit of time giving Nader a lot of press. Throw his story out in the public lake and see if people bite. If they're clamoring for more – keep it up. Otherwise… well, should a candidate few are going to vote for truly get a lot of air time?

NONE

N.O.N.E

Nader is an american. Therefore, if he wants to run he should. I say the way that this nation is going to hell in a handbasket that Lou Dobbs or Mayor Bloomberg should test the waters Don't wait. For God's sake America needs you.

Especially because Ralph Nader is someone with a national presence and a history of participating seriously on the national electoral front, it seems undemocratic to not allow him the same amount of time as networks allow the Democratic and Republican nominees. I understand that it is almost certain one of those two nominees will win the general election and thus a sentiment exists that they should receive the bulk of the time, but limiting the time of other candidates only further fuels the power of two of the many political parties in this country.

How much time should Nader get?

Zero: You already know his positions, and you know he's not going to win.

i think Ralph Nader simply wants the air time to draw attention to his platform and flout his opinions and ego. After the 2000 election, his viability as a candidate to be taken seriously or even fathom voting for evaporated with the realization that FL was so close. With winning less that 1/2 of a percent of the vote in the 2004 election. How can you make a case for him being a valid 3rd party nominee. You simply can't. So the decision to give him air time, is a question on whether you care to give him personally the opportunity to vent his opinions and ego.

I think he should get more time.

If you have to even ask the question I'll predict the outcome – about as much as Ron Paul, close to none.

Wolf,

I have to start off by telling you i am a big fan and really respect your opinion (not to pander or anything). I think the only real influence that Ralph Nader will have on this election is to bring higher levels of scrutiny to both candidates. As and Obama supporter (and voter) I actually relish this as it will give him an oppurtunity to show that he does have more than fancy talk to those non-believers still out there. I am concerned however about Sen. McCain's reputation and future as a higher level of scrutiny will bring out things long forgotten or pushed under the proverbial rug, that is if the exist at all. The thing about Sen. McCain's larger amount of experience is it also creates a larger record to track and potentially use against him.

I think you should give Mr. Nader as much attention that you are giving Huckabee and the rest of them. Who are you to decide. This is America the last time I looked.

Give Nader no time. It is his onus to prove he's a viable candidate. If he does that, he may then merit more airtime. If I said I wanted to run for President tomorrow, it doesn't mean I deserve airtime to make my case. This guy only got 0.4% of the vote in the last election. That's not a viable candidate.

Wolf, thank you for actually asking this very important question. First, Let me state that I am a registered Democrat who last voted for a Democrat during Bill Clinton's first run for President. Since then, I have lost faith in the Democratic Party. My views are completely in line with that of a third party; i.e independant, or whatever you choose to label me/us.

That said, I think any credible third party candidate is worth as much airtime as any of the two major parties. The issue, as you have set up your question, is what defines the term "credible"? The difinition of 'Any chance of winning' would negate every single third party candidate to ever run. Ever. So, your narrow definition already answered your question.

I feel anyone who has a national name and reputation, and following, is IN FACT a credible candidate that the media MUST allow equal airtime (That would negate me, for example, but Perot and Nader would qualify). Whether he/she has a chance of winning is irrelevant.

The very sad footnote is your portrayal of Perot as 'credible' while Nader is not. Why? Becuase Perot would steal votes from the GOP, so he is credible in the medias eyes, but anyone stealing votes from the Dems, GOD FORBID!!!! They are NOT credible.
The media is a biased and bordering on being a complete joke when it comes to politics, however I will thank you asking your patronizing question. Keep up the good work.

He should not be given any time. He is no longer relevant to the discussion

You should give virtually no air time to Ralph Nader in the general election. He has absolutely no chance of winning and he is simply a distraction in this historic and crucial election year. If Nader really cared about a change in direction in this country, he wouldn't run. He is simply running for his own personal ambitions!

Nader should not run. He has done enough to harm this country. He is chasing ego now, not what is best for the American People.
Ralph is a true American, but he has to know when to throw in the towel.

Don't give Nader ANY time! He's a divisionist, and he'll never be anything more than what he was in the last few races. Giving him airtime will just be a waste of CNN's time and resources.

NONE! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!

Don't give him any more time, thought or serious consideration than you would give Pat Paulson.

No time for Nader. Zero.

The election in 2000 was too close for a spoiler like Mr. Nader. Fast forward to 2004 and he barely registered a notch on the vote tally. Clearly he believes he has an alternative to the Democratic candidates, and has also stated his belief that McCain is not the answer for this country. Given his lackluster performance on the campaign trail in '04, his inability to garner greater than 3 percent of popular support in 2000 and his distrust of Republicans, can this be about anything other than ego?

Go home Ralph, and keep protecting consumers, it's where your talents lie.

Ralph Nader has now entered the category of Lyndon Larouche and the candidate on the Pro-Marijuana-Legalization party. Ralph Nader's 3% in 2000 was enough to give George Bush the election, but his paltry showing of 0.3% in 2004 is a much more accurate representation of how relevant the American people view him. He may have fooled some people to believe that there was no difference between the two parties once, but he won't again. If you are going to give him much attention, then you should offer the same coverage to other fringe candidates.

Mr. Blitzer,

I'm voting Democrat, but I believe Mr. Nader has a wonderful voice to add to the race. His critiques of Clinton, but Obama especially will force the candidates to be more specific and more open about their plans and, hopefully, give us voters a better vision of what these candidates will really do once in office. Don't let the dems cast his questions off so lightly. Give the man a chance to say what he wants. He certainly deserves it after what he has done for us all over the last 40 years.

Jason Farr

Wolf,
I am a registered Republican and I voted for Ralph in 2000 when he was the green party candidate. I just could not bring myself to vote for W. that year.

Ralph is an intelligent, thoughtful man who has the courage of his convictions. It's better to vote for him than to wrie in "Daffy Duck" on your ballot. Please, give Ralph good air time. I am sick of politics as usual and candidates who have hidden agendas. Ralph has earned a well-deserved place in our national landscape and after so many runs for the office, surely this deserves your consideration.

Wolf,

Marginal candidates end up being marginal specifically because of the media ignoring their candidacy. Ross Perot was a significant player in 1992 because he did a good job getting himself on TV so people knew not only who he was but what his platform was all about. At this point, everybody knows who Nader is but only because he played "spoiler" in 2000, not for what his actual policies are. The know his history of consumer advocacy but don't know much more than that. I'm not a Nader supporter at all but the more coverage you give him (and any other non-Demopublican candidate) can only improve the healthiness of political debate and dialogue and the democratic process. People looked at candidates like Kucinich and Paul as wacko fringe candidates but I believe if they'd been given as much opportunity to explain the basis of their opinions, more mainstream voters would have sided with them. Instead, people go to the Obamas, Clintons, and McCains of Washington since those are the only names they hear on the news.

"Less than none" comes to mind. The day Bush was inaugurated was the day that Nader became irrelevant in American politics. His support in 2004 was only 16% of his support in 2000 – and he didn't have a lot of support in 2000 to begin with (less than 3 million votes). I say zero time until he's on the ballot in all 50 states, or at least enough states to give him a mathematical shot at winning the presidency outright (i.e. 271 electoral votes). Otherwise, his quadrennial running should be shown for the vanity candicacy it is and no airtime given.

"Nutty Nader" gets NO time from ME and that's what the media should give him. the man has destroyed his legacy as a consumer advocate with his half baked Presidential runs. I don't care what the man says, HE is the REASON we have George W as President because he siphoned off just enough votes from Gore in Florida in 2000 SO he is the DIRECT CAUSE of all the problems W has created in America including the Iraq War!!!

he IS and always WILL BE a DISGRACE!!!

Take him seriously and give him equal time like you give all of the candidates. He has just as good a chance of winning if he is given air time. That's the problem with the media today. They think certain potential political candidates have no credibility or no chance of winning and therefore they should be shut out of the election. These are the same actions that caused John Edwards, Kuicinich and the rest to drop out of the race early. Give him the same air time you give McCain, Clinton, Huckabee and Obama. They all deserve an equal shot of making their case to the American public as to why they should be the next president. This isthe most serious election of our time and it is not the media's job to decide what candidates are credible or actually have a chance of wining. Just report the facts and stay objective. Again Nader does not steal votes from other candidates, he is doing what other presidential candiadates are doing trying to win votes. And has a very good chance of winning this election if the media were to take him seriously and let him debate with the rest.

How much time should he get? Absolutely nothing. If McCain is going to have to face ageism them Nader has an uphill battle. Furthermore, his perennial stance that there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties just doesn't hold water anymore. I can't say that I completely disagreed with him in 2000 or even that he didn't have some key points in 2008.

However, after 8 years of Bush, there are staunch differences between 'Pubs and Dems. It really is a shame that his mark as being one of the biggest consumer advocates of our time will be marred by his befuddling presidential antics.

Honestly, I think that Nader's campaign is a joke. He cannot and will not win. His campaign is a useless attempt to get attention at best, a theif of possible votes at worst. Nader should not be taken seriously. It is as if a normal person were to put his name on a balot just to see how many times he could be on it.

I do not feel he has any chance of winning. You can give him 24 hour air time and he would still not have a chance of winning.

considering that the media effectively made ron paul a "nobody" by giving him about zero air-time – this includes print, debates, and top-story internet exposure – i think it will also be an effective strategy to push nader out of the race. no airtime means no one knows his platform, right?

He is a party breaker. He is going to repeat the same thing what John Edwards did for Barack Obama in NH. Definitely he should not get the same amount of time as compared to the candidates who are campaigning from year and a half. Giving an equal time will be absolutely unfair.

How can a person just come at the end of this whole political WAR and claiming himself as an candidate for presidential race?

Other candidates has invested lot of their personal time and raised money which he did not.

He doesn’t deserve any TV time at all.

I'm sad we don't have law to avoid these things.

Everyone should be given equal air time. How much air time did you guys give Dr. Ron Paul? How much air time have you been giving him recently? In fact, Mr. Nader has received more air time/internet time than Dr. Paul. Hrmm.

Absolutely no time should be given to this individual. By not accepting responsiblility for his useless candidacy in 2000 we have ended up with what he says is the "outlaw presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Chaney."

Nader is not a legitimate condidate. Where has he been during the past several months of campaigning? He's had his time on NBC and has nothing more to add. Please, give hime the bare minumun of time.

Ralph Nader does not stand a chance….especially against Obama he would not look good because Obama manages to draw many independents….aginst Hillary Clintin however he might actually have an influence on the presidential elction….he actually might help McCain get elected….by taking valuable independent votes from her……therefore he should not get any air time at all….he won't be able to win but only might help to prevent serious change from happening!!!!!!!!!!

He should get just as much as any other candidate. though his candidacy is a joke it is not for the news media to decide who is and who is not acceptable for the role of president. I am sorry to say that they did not give other candidates the time of day from the start. Those candidates could have been a much better choice but never got their name out because of the media. Maybe equality is too much but it is where things should start at least.

Absolutely no time should be given to this individual. By not accepting responsiblility for his useless candidacy in 2000 we have ended up with what he says is the "outlaw prsidency of George W. Bush and Dick Chaney."

None. It would be a waste of time. Just as people voting for him are simply wasting their votes. They're better off not even going to the polling place that Tuesday.

Ralph Nader is not a serious candidate in my eyes, and as time and many elections have proved his support is marginal and his results devisive. I liked him many years ago, but he knows the effect his entering the pres race had last time, that he will not win, and he still persists in injecting himself into the presidential race. There is too much to cover in this race to devote time to such a selfish person. So, my opinion –move on and cover minimally.

None. He's had his time.

Response to Wolf Blitzer…….

Nader will be a very marginal candidiate in 2008 and not worth giving much air time. However, the day is coming when there will be a "real" third party and its popularity will mandate lots of media coverage. That is the next level of "change" in U.S. politics.

Easy enough…simply marginal with no chance of winning.

The only fair thing to do is give him equal time. He's a candidate, and as such, deserves as much a shot as any other candidate. You have no right to judge his 'air-time' based on what you think of his chances. Only the voters can decide at the poles who deserves to be President.

Zero……….. 0……

Wolf,

None. Just tell Nader to bug off!

None.

Very little time if any, should be spent on Nadar, it's pretty late in the game, he's not a real contender, this is a game to him to see how much havoc he can cause. He is not giving any real regard to the American people, this is all about him.

Wolf,

Considering how "well" Nader did in the 2004 election, he's been marginalized, and shouldn't be given any more attention than say Mike Gravel. (Is Gravel still in?)

–MJ Salamone

Nader is a joke and should not continuously destroy our country like he did in 2000. He know he is not going to win, so why take away votes that are not helping the country but hurting us. Go back to you home and stay out of the political ring "please"

Is it just me or does this guy bear a strange resemblance to the evil emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?

I'm sure this won't make it on to CNN.

You're kidding right? His ego is bigger than the number of backers he has. His plan must be to ruin the democrats chances of taking the whitehouse back. If he cares about the poor – why then help the republicans win AGAIN????

Zero time, Wolf, unless he admits that his 2000 campaign is the reason we got Bush 43, even if Jeb and the Supremes hadn't fixed the election. He is a politically ignorant and arrogant has-been who should stick to his day job of protecting consumers and the environment.

I don't believe there is any credence to a Ralph Nader run for office. I think he is a has been who just likes seeing himself on TV. He is a marginal candidate and as such should be given very little media coverage. For once, we actually have good candidates on each side of the aisle that make for good choices for America. We don't need Nader.

Nader runs because he likes being in the spotlight. He knows that he can't win and he adds little to the national conversation other than the potential draw away from the democratic vote. He will be only a distraction to what is already an extremely pivotal race that has this nations eye more than any other in recent history. He deserves consideration proportional to the votes he won in the last election – virtually none.

Nader's '04 results tell all (.04%). He is not a major third party candidate. In fact, he has no party supporting him.
A candidate with this little support, who will not be on the ballot in a majority of states, who has no campaign and no message for the electorate should not be given any time by the media.

as very little time as possible. all the air time should be given to the candidates who been in the process for than a year, it should be given to those who have raised money, made campaign stops and dedicated all their time to the election process. Nadar is a protest candidate but i wonder what he is protesting? all the candidates in this election are organized and strong , we dont need somebody who will distract attention from serious issues. what america needs right now is a good president, one who has a real plan not someone who is running for reasons that still remain fuzzy in my opinion. give nadar as little time as possible, and give the other more dedicated candidates as much time as they need to give the general public their opionion.

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.

Hopefully you will give him more time than you gave Ron Paul. Boo!!

I believe that everyone should have equal time in the media. How do you define a viable candidate. I support Obama but I to not think the media should have control over whom they think is viable.

He should get no air time. Clearly he is just putting his name on the ballot to detract the real opponents, just as he did when Bush slipped through again.

The only coverage that CNN seems to lean towards is Obama, you act like he already has this in the bag. So why even bother trying to decide if you will give coverage to any other candidate !

Ask Hillary she has some experience on that.

Someone who gets .4% of America's vote deserves a reference every now and then, Wolf.

As much time as we are giving hillary and not allowing Obama to wrap up this thing. I wonder if we could have treated Mr. Obama the same if he lost the last 11 contests. Just shows how unfair this country can get!

How about as much time as Ron Paul got? Seems fair.