No one has ever really responded to this point I've made a few times:
Right now Nader is a complete pariah, an outcast who will never accomplish anything because he's lost all his former allies and won't be taken seriously again. But this is more due to running in 2004 than 2000. Had he simply stood down in 2004 and worked on mending bridges instead of lighting the all ablaze by running again, he might have a chance to make a difference again.
Now what he did he accomplish by running in 2004? Nothing. What COULD he have accomplished? Nothing. At least in 2000 there was the issue of earning major party status for the Green Party. Nader's 2004 run did nothing but solidify his status as a pariah.
Now doesn't that prove that Nader is more concerned with his ego than the public good? Why should I respect such a guy?
This thread does offer insights into someone's ego, but I don't think it's Ralph Nader's.