When Yoshie wrote that, Ralph hadn't announced his run. There were just rumors. At that time, she was on about how voting for a Democrat was detracting from the antiwar movement. When pressed on the question, "but how does voting harm the antiwar movement?" she didn't respond to me directly. She did suggest, though, that if people felt so strongly about getting Shrub out, then they ought to actually campaign for a democrat.
I believe the point is that it is only through a certain kind of political practice that people come to a radical consciousness. So, the point is to get people actively involved in social struggles, preferably the antiwar movement.
Since Ralph entered the race, though, the push has been to critiquing and attacking those she casts as "Anybody But Bush"ers on the several different fronts. Nader and the GPs are, at least, a somewhat more progressive force. It's better to have people supporting them by either campaigning actively for Greens or at least voting for them. If you vote for them, then they'll continue to be successful. As they gain success, it becomes yet one more locus of progressive (and possibly radical) political practice. IOW, it's better to keep them going if you want to work toward a larger more radical struggle, right? They might not be radical leftists, but they're better than liberals and democrats.
I think you can see her point if you think about social movement theories and resource mobilization. The Greens will become a locus of movement resources: people, money, knowledge, expertise, experience, etc. These resources can be diverted toward more radical political protest and social struggle later on down the road.
I don't know if I've represented Yoshie fairly, but I hope you and others can see that I'm at least trying to understand the point of view. I pretty much disagree with Yoshie on this issue, though, if it's not clear.
Kelley