Just watched Ralph Nader announce his candidacy for President. It was a frustrating, uninspiring interview, sprinkled with ironic moments like Nader describing those concerned that he would throw the election to Bush as the "liberal intelligensia," his refusal to release his income tax returns, and a near dodge on gay marriage. And his claim that nothing would be any different under Al Gore anyway. This much, of course, is true: Money is flowing in like never before that sells our elections. What does that mean to the American people? It means that corporations are saying no to the necessities of the American people. They're saying no to health insurance for everyone, no to tax reform, no to health and safety standards, no to stopping corporate welfare into hundreds of billions, no to straightening out the defense budget, which is bloated and redundant, as many retired generals and admirals said, no to access to our courts. It's time for people to say yes and we need more civic and political energies inside the campaign to challenge this two-party duopoly that's trending toward one-party districts all over the country. But it's difficult to see a Nader candidacy as anything but a setback for those goals.