So Ralph Nader still wants to be president - or at least it seems he wants to make life difficult for Democrats in the name of true representative democracy. Nader has announced he is thinking about another presidential bid.

This is the guy who ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000, taking 97,000 votes in Florida - votes that undeniably would have ended up, for the most part, in Al Gore's basket. Since George W. Bush won Florida by less than 600 votes, some people credit the quixotic consumer advocate with the government they've been subjected to over the past eight years.

But is that fair? As Nader would say, it's the people who voted for him rather than his rightful entry into the race that made a George W. Bush presidency possible. Some might say that's the same argument as, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

In any case, the 2000 election mess is water under the bridge. But a 2008 Nader candidacy should raise all kinds of red flags for true progressives - which I do not equate with the fringe Left. Progressives are not just "for" progress; they are about selling the whole concept of progress - a task that requires a strategic game plan that is about actually winning America over.

It's Not Easy Being 'Green'

I was the lone representative from the "media" at an event Feb. 2 in Washington, D.C., at which Nader was the featured guest. The event was hosted by the Green Party, of which Nader is emphatically not a member. Too much intra-party "squabbling," he told the rather frumpy crowd. (Ouch. What was that saying about perceptions of the Greens, even among supposed allies?)

Before Nader spoke, a panel of Green Party candidates expressed their very noble and no-doubt correct assessments of some of the problems facing our nation and its people. From mountaintop removal in West Virginia - which one candidate said is contributing to the global climate threat - to the push for D.C. statehood, I was sympathetic to their positions.

But as the dreadlocked blonde on the panel astutely pointed out, those who want D.C. residents to achieve voting rights in Congress need to sell that story to their fellow voters across the nation. Right - because it is the members of Congress, from the 50 existing states, who will decide the fate of D.C. statehood, and only the voters in those states can exert the required pressure to make it happen. This really should not be news.

What it all comes down to is how so-called progressives expect to achieve buy-in with mainstream voters. I wonder what they are actually willing to do - in terms of how they present themselves beyond their own fold and how they SPEAK to their fellow Americans - to make inroads with the mainstream majority.

From what I saw Saturday, the Green Party has a lot of work to do on generating perceptions of its candidates and constituencies that will translate into viability beyond the leftist fringe.

Nader to Skeptics: You're 'Political Bigots'

Once onstage, Nader's first order of business was to address the perception of his role as spoiler in the 2000 race. He has come up with a rhetorical catch phrase for his supporters to use whenever someone tries to ask them about the logic of a Nader run in 2008. He is encouraging them to deflect such questions by accusing the questioners of "political bigotry."

I guess, in his view, that phrase is supposed to act like a club of political correctness to silence challenges to his presidential "vision." But is that much different than what any dictatorial regime does to quell dissent - use loaded rhetoric as a weapon?

As a relatively objective observer at the event, I tried to overstep that rhetorical barrier and ask the guest of honor why he would enter the race now, when the Democratic Party - of the two major parties, the one more friendly to the progressive cause - arguably has its best chance to win the White House in nearly ten years.

The crowd switched instantly from groovy to hostile and booed the question. Nader, for his part, fell back on his "political bigotry" line without addressing his potential responsibility in a negative electoral outcome for Democrats in November. When I asked a follow-up about why Nader wouldn't simply try to join with the many other groups and individuals who want a viable third party - you know, to create some actual traction for the idea on a much broader basis - I got no answer.

Perception, if not everything, is almost everything in politics. Nader wondered aloud why people like Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards couldn't garner enough votes to stay in the presidential race. My answer: perception baggage. (Anyone who wants to know what I'm talking about can order my book, "Democrats in the Red Zone: an Independent voter's take on the game of political perception," at www.redzonepolitics.com).

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons no establishment press were there. But maybe that was a good thing for the Greens, who have some work to do in terms of presentation: namely, increasing their professionalism, which would extend to giving their "moderators" some training in courtesy. Snapping at people to hurry along before they finish making a comment and asking a question (questions generally have lead-in comments, people) is not efficient. It's just rude.

Further, the jeans-and-old-tee-shirt style that seemed to be the default fashion statement would only have served to further pigeonhole the Left as stylistically careless - a predictable perception that doesn't serve it well in our television culture. Again, the idea is to create CREDIBILITY for the progressive cause, and that means PLAYING THE GAME by the RULES.

But the junior varsity can be forgiven for its relative lack of strategic savvy. The varsity has been in desperate need of new coaches and quarterbacks, and on the eve of Super Bowl XLII and Super Tuesday, the Democrats may finally be building a political team that can execute wins the way the New England Patriots have all year.

As I make quite clear in my book, I agree with Nader that the Democratic Party in general and the 2000 Gore and 2004 Kerry campaigns in particular had only themselves to blame for their inability to play the political game with the kind of strategic smarts that seem to be second nature for Republicans.

Naderublicans?

So, whose side is Nader on, anyway? It's hard to tell. The problem with Nader's purist idealism is that it can easily be perceived as a selfish, all-or-nothing attitude. In my view, the workings of human governance require less radical tactics than those of dedicated leftists. I mean, we're talking about moving millions of mainstream voters toward a new paradigm. Bashing them over the head with self-righteous leftist indignation has, I think, been reliably shown not to work.

Nader says good stuff. He makes a lot of sense when he talks. But do his political actions make sense? I was left wondering: What are his true motives in all this? He looked almost too tired to take on a bid for president.

Maybe what he really wants is for Democrats, as he puts it, to just "steal my ideas." But what about the "idea" of generating a mainstream constituency for those ideas so they'll actually be worth stealing?

Nader left his audience with one mystical nugget of advice. "Remember Confucius," he said. "Find the right word, and you're halfway there." Okay. We can all agree that using the right language is key to the art of communication.

But more to the point for those on the radical Left: Change takes time. And THIS time, progressive America REALLY doesn't have time for an indulgent crusade by Ralph Nation (or at this point, more like Ralph Village). Anyone who signs onto Nader's questionable quest risks acting as a de facto friend to reactionaries everywhere. (Just so we're clear on what the reality on the ground would be. Remember, we've been there before.)

All of this begs the question: Why fart around? If you support Nader for president, why not just go ahead and endorse the Republican Party and all it has come to stand for? Because supporting Nader gives Republicans an edge they don't need.

It's time for those who consider themselves progressives to get real - and that means getting realistic. Realism - not idealism - is a key strategic mindset in the game of hardball that is the political process in today's America. Our nation will benefit from more warriors for the progressive cause who KNOW how to play that game instead of wishfully thinking they are playing on a different field.