>Why? He'd be lucky to get 1% of the vote. What would be the symbolic
>achievement of that? Proving there's no diff between the parties?
>Almost no one, and I mean almost no one, would believe that - and
>the disbelief would be underscored by his <1% total. Party building?
>He's already refused the Green nomination, and it'd be hard as hell
>for him to get on more than a few state ballots by now. So what
>would be the point of a Nader run?
An election doesn't just have to be about results, its an opportunity to debate ideas as well. There was an interesting article called "Action Will Be Taken" being discussed here recently. I seem to recall you were one of the authors. Good stuff by the way
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas