Proving once again how inaptly named the Democratic Party is

And the Democrats are back in the act:

While Mr. Nader digs in his heels, the Democrats are trying to sideline him. The party has enlisted Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, who has declared an "extraordinary emergency" to stomp out Nader votes. And some former associates of Mr. Nader are organizing an extensive, well-financed national campaign against him. Organizers include Toby Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut and onetime "Nader Raider," who lost a close race for the Senate in 1982 after his former boss endorsed his opponent.

This is more than mere sour grapes. Democrats just seem incapable of getting it. Trying to silence Nader, launching unjust personal attacks, fighting vigorously to keep him off the ballot wherever possible -- it's not only disturbing, but also a fairly ineffective way of trying to win an election.

No, Nader's not going to win. He might not concede that point, but he's smart enough to know how realistic his chances are.

But Nader's candidacies, past and present, have never been about winning office for himself. They've been about raising awareness of important, underreported issues and broadening the political discourse, fighting for the silenced masses and reinvigorating American democracy. I believed in that four years ago and I believe in it still today.

There are also more significant reasons why Nader appeals to plenty of voters and non-voters. He's definitely an outsider, a lifelong member of the opposition, the kind of agitator that this country needs to question authority and place sorely needed (and lacking) checks on the powerful. He has made a brilliant career of this as an ascetic policy wonk and consumer advocate, and all Americans owe an unnoticed debt of gratitude to him and his life's work. He is without pretension, refreshingly candid and unafraid to put himself on the ledge for his country. Whereas other candidates talk of working for their country or serving the country ("reporting for duty," as it were), Nader goes out and does it without trying to draw attention to himself.

Yet for this he is demonized by blindly obedient Democrats because Nader appeals to many voters deemed "liberal" whose votes, so think the Dems, should be theirs by birthright. It's an arrogant, condescending attitude that does much more to turn off Americans from voting and active participation in politics, and greatly undermines democracy. Instead of courting voters in more substantive ways -- proudly adopting some genuinely progressive positions would be a refreshing change -- Democrats set out to appeal to the lowest common denominator, demonizing Nader and doing their damnedest to keep him off the ballot.

I've beaten this horse to death, but it's always worth repeating: having Nader on the ballot is good for democracy. And if Democrats are so fearful of the consequences of his candidacy for their own horse, then that just speaks volumes to the inadequacy of their own candidate.

As Nader said himself to petitioners trying to get him on the ballot in California, "The question you ask people is, 'Do you think California voters who want to vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo should be able to?'" Absolutely.

I remain undecided as to whether and for whom I'll vote. But learning of tactics such as these employed by Democrats (and they hardly seem like "rogue" types from whom John Kerry and the party leadership would distance themselves) does nothing to win me over to their side. It simply instills a lot of hostility in me and makes me want to vote for Nader just to spite them. And I can appreciate the call for "unity" the Dems are making, and their desire to avoid factionalism that will make a two-term Bush more likely. But they seem bent on going about this through "repressed conformity" than genuine pluralism within the party.

So until the Dems change their ways and do more to be welcoming to the dissatisfied progressives whose votes they evidently want, I have just three words:

Run, Ralph, Run.