From Amanda Marcotte’s “Ralph Nader’s Dishonest, Sexist Rant Against Hillary Clinton” at Talking Points Memo:

Nineties nostalgia is cute when it’s all about overalls and Nicki Minaj sampling “Baby Got Back,” but Ralph Nader is taking it too far, by trying to revive his all-too-successful late ’90s campaign to convince huge numbers of American liberals that there is no meaningful difference between Republicans and Democrats.
In a recent interview with Larry King for Ora.TV, Nader launched a rather scurrilous accusation of secret Republicanism at Hillary Clinton that recalled his similar efforts against Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the ’90s, only this time he added a sexist kicker to it. King asked Nader about recent accusations that Nader has lobbed at Clinton, namely that she evinces a “shocking militarism that is a result of trying to overcompensate for her gender by being more aggressive and macho,” and that she’s “reversing the tradition of women of peace.”

Since the Florida mess in 2000, Nader has pitched nonsense like a left-lbertarian alliance, which neither side wants, and he has gushed positively about Rep. Ron Paul’s isolationist credo, despite Paul’s racist newsletter and opposition to racial justice. Further, adds Marcotte:

Nader talks about politicians from both parties. He concedes that Jeb Bush is just like his brother and calls him a “corporatist and a militarist,” but he elides talking about specifics. For Democrats, however, his language gets aggressive and colorful. He outright accuses Obama of being worse than George W. Bush, Same story with Clinton: To watch this interview, you’d think that the country is much more likely to get into a war under Clinton than under Jeb Bush,
Nader is playing the same game on domestic policy, too. He tacitly admits that Clinton might be able to do things like raise the minimum wage or improve the social safety net, but immediately shifts gears back to trying to convince you that there’s no real difference between Republicans and Democrats on economic issues,
It’s clear that Nader is really gunning for a rerun of the 2000 election. He is still pushing the toxic narrative that the Democrat and the Republican are indistinguishable, with heavy insinuation that the Democrat may even be worse. Even if Nader doesn’t run–here’s hoping!–that narrative is a godsend for Republicans hoping to chip off votes from the Democrats. If liberals are discouraged from thinking that a vote for the Democrats matters, they’re not going to vote, which will help the Republican, likely Jeb Bush, coast to victory.

Many believe that the fallout from Nader’s 2000 foray into presidential politics includes two wars, a depression, the extremist conquest of the GOP and the destruction of countless norms of democracy. Enough Nader already.