Ralph Nader announced that he will be running for President again this year. He ran in 2000 on the Green Party ticket, and won 2.7% of the popular vote. Many Democrats accuse him of costing former Vice-President Al Gore the election; Nader won 97000+ votes in Florida, where Gore lost by 537 votes. It is possible quite a few (extreme left) Democrats voted for Nader hoping to get him over the 5% threshold required to qualify the Green Party for federal financing in the next election cycle.
The Democrat response has been typical - both Senators Clinton and Obama say Nader made a mistake in 2000, and possibly was making another today. The Republicans, at least Mike Huckabee, appear thrilled. However, I have to disagree with the Democrats on this - Al Gore lost the 2000 election on his own. He did not carry his own home state of Tennessee - if you can't do that, you don't deserve to win, IMHO.
How will this play out? I have stated earlier that there are Democrats who are unhappy with Senator Obama; they could possibly vote for Nader rather than Senator McCain. Senator Clinton does not attract as many independents as Senator Obama; these voters might consider Nader more palatable than Senator McCain. Of course, Nader has no realistic chance of winning; his votes will be more out of pique at the Democratic candidate than anything else. Oh well.
The Clinton campaign has been lamenting being outspent by Senator Obama in Wisconsin, and apparently in "many early-voting" states. While they could use this to motivate their fund-raising efforts, this is purely - no other way to say this - their own dumb fault. They raised almost as much money as the Obama campaign - $130 million as per an AP report - but apparently had no control over spending... typical for Democrats?