Once again: A crucial perspective here is that those who are fighting over Nader's (or the GP's) presidential campaign will _have_ to unite again against Kerry's crimes in Iraq come 2005 -- because he _will_ follow a criminal policy there. No other policy is possible for an army of occupation.
And with this in mind the argument _has_ to be over a matter of judgment, NOT a matter of principle _or_ the character or motives of those on the other side.
One of the arguments some ABBs have advanced is that it is easier to build resistance when the DP is in office. Perhaps. It certainly won't be if those same ABBs have reduced themselves to frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of not supporting the DP all the way this year.
The same people who say over and over again that they are _not_ "supporting" Kerry but ONLY opposing Bush, are sending in post after post attacking Nader personally and politically, though it ought to be obvious that most support of Nader is _not_ tied to any positive view of Nader but wholly focused on opposing the RP/DP. Nader's personal qualifications or his policies are (for some of us) as irrelevant as are Kerry's (vicious) principles to the ABBs who are supporting him.
Note: This post does _not_ contain my reasons for supporting Nader; that is a different topic. My concern here is strictly on the relationships that need to be maintained, during the electoral campaign, among anti-war people who are ABBs and anti-war people who refuse to support the DP.
Carrol