> I think Cockburn is right that it was Nader who put a spark under Gore
> and made him competitive in 2000. But Nader should have dropped out in
> the last two weeks when it became obvious how close it was. There was
> this idea then that the temporary "creative destruction" of a Bush
> victory would help progressives over the long term. That was a
> catastrophic mis-judgement. Most likely the changes of the last few
> years are irreversible.
I disagree, but mainly on an issue of principle. Let's say that Nader did drop out just before the election, and even offered his support to Gore in order to derail Bush. I'm not certain that's the kind of statement we'd want to hear. For one thing, it'd kill any effort at cultivating a Third Party for the liberal-left: if even _Ralph Nader_ turns tail at the last moment, well, it'd just convince more people that third parties are not viable in and of themselves, but only as some weird tactic developed to nudge and lobby the two mainstream parties.
For another, it'd reinforce the idea that progressives have nowhere to go _but_ the Democratic party. The DLC'ers have already decided that they really don't have to reach out to the leftish end of their constuency-- and if Nader had dropped out, all he'd have done was prove them right.