SergioL652 at aol.com wrote:
> Support
Four years ago in LBO Doug gave a very lukewarm suggestion to vote for Nader then if he was on the ballot in one's state. And of course there is even better reason to vote for him this time. But I don't feel that the argument to vote for Nader rather than cast a blank ballot (voting for Gore being out of the question) is a self-evident choice. If one is going to cast a protest ballot, the protest ought to be fairly clear. But the current Counterpunch has a brief story on Nader being incredibly mushy-mouthed on the questions of sanctions on Iraq. And that is being mushy on a program that is with increasing clarity meeting even the technical requirements for constituting a genocide. Is that acceptable.
Carrol
P.S. I could conceive of someone's choosing to *campaign* for Nader, in so far as that constituted expanding one's direct person-to- person meetings with people to discuss issues. I can't quite see myself actually voting for him though unless he clarifies his position on Iraq.