When a ‘progressive’ voter, whether a sometime Democrat supporter, a Green or a left-leaning libertarian stands in that voting booth pondering eight years of Republican misrule he/she has a very simple choice: to try and end the neo-con farce or not. Only a vote for the Democrat candidate, Obama, Clinton or Mickey Mouse come to that, has any chance of achieving that and, at this stage in American history, any ‘progressive’ who isn’t working towards ousting the Republicans at all costs is deeply suspect and deserves any derision and opprobrium aimed aimed at them.

But I stand by the principle and if he gets within spitting distance of a debate with the other candidates, I’d say that that would be A Good Thing.

In a closely aligned two party system like America there’s always a tacit omerta on certain issues (see also the UK). Somebody needs to have a crack at it and Nader’s the only guy to stand up and say so. In that sense, Nader’s providing an important service whether anybody votes for him or not.

“Ralph Nader’s view is, unless it’s Ralph Nader, then you’re not tough enough on any of these issues,” he said. “He thought there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. I think eight years later, people realize Ralph doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

He’s no progressive. He believes there is nothing to choose between the Democrats and Republicans therefore he has no real interest in the outcome of this election. ‘Little boy’ is an apt description for this faded, irrelevant party-pooper who wants his Screaming Lord Sutch moment again. But he’s a busted flush. He’ll have no impact whatsoever this time around. He’ll just be an annoying prick for a few months.

It’s like John McDonnell running against Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership. Brown couldn’t afford to let McDonnell into the contest – not because he was afraid McDonnell might win but because the underdog might make him publicly debate issues Brown would rather were left buried.