<DIV>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. "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">A vote for Gore in 2000 was a vote to confirm an incumbent administration, and a vote for Bush was a vote for something worse but not substantially different. So a vote for Nader was a way to reject the incumbency. I'll vote against incumbency in 2004, as I did in 2000. --CGE On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 lweiger@umich.edu wrote: > > No, I voted for Nader and urged others to as well. There's a bit of > > pride-swallowing for me now to be complaining about Ralph. I'd always had > > lots of problems with him, but supported him in '96 and '00 anyway. This > > time I want him to go away. He's an embarrassment now. > > > > Doug > > As he was in '00--Ralph hasn't changed, but Doug, Mike, Justin et al. have. > > > (One might argue that the political climate has changed. Sure, Bush's wars > weren't to be expected. His shameful economic policies, on the other > hand...) > > -- Luke > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree">Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard</a>