Ralph Nader's announcement that he was running for president was greeted with a collective yawn. After two failed campaigns, the consensus was been there, got the t-shirt, the buttons, the bumper stick, the pain of defeat.

Many Democrats blame him for Al Gore's loss in the 2000 presidential election. They believe the 97,488 votes that Nader received in Florida tipped the election to George W. Bush. So Democrats want Nader, the star of the documentary, "An Unreasonable Man," to just go away.But Nader isn't going anywhere. In an appearance on "Meet the Press," he told Tim Russert: "The political bigotry that's involved here is that we shouldn't enter the electoral arena? We, all of us who, who, who think that the country needs an infusion of freedom, democracy, choice, dissent should just sit on the sidelines and watch the two parties own all the voters and turn the government over to big business? What's really important here is, if you want to look at it analytically, is there--Mr. Gore would, would tell you if he won Tennessee, anything else being equal, he would've been president. It's his home state. If he won Arkansas, everything else being equal, he would've been president. "

Nader has a point. Given that his supporters are "special," they probably would not have voted if he wasn't on the ballot in Florida.

But that's crying over spilled milk. If Nader gets on the ballot in key battleground states, Democrats may be crying in their beer in November.

Polls show the general election will be close. John McCain and the Democratic nominee, whether it's Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, are in a statistical tie. In this unbelievable election year, Nader may be a factor. According to a recent Zogby poll, six percent of voters support Nader. Among voters under age 30 and libertarians, his support climbs to 12 percent.

So, add the "Nader effect," along with the "Wright effect," to the political lexicon for Election '08.