Reply #63: You may have confused cause and effect there

[Bill Todd]

at least in part because Nader seemed reluctant to enter the race until it became clear that the Democratic nominee would be Kerry (or some other DLC flunky): without that, he likely simply wouldn't be running.

The other relevant observation is that Democrats supporting Nader may well be doing so less out of pique than because he gives voice to the positions that they feel are important. I've never been a Nader supporter myself, but I like a lot of what he's saying a lot more than I like what Kerry's saying. And since I'm mad as hell about the way the party treated Dean, if ever I were going to support Nader for that reason now would be the time.

One thing that I am glad about is that Nader's candidacy seems likely to place more pressure on Kerry and the party to address better the concerns that people like me have about them.

Rather than assume that people who don't agree with your own political strategy this year are 'bitter' or in some other way less than competent, it might be more productive to try to understand where they're actually coming from. At least if you have any reason to suspect that their votes or other support might be valuable in the future. If their tone is sometimes harsh, it may be simply because they're just as determined to change the party as the more strident Kerry supporters here are to change the occupant of the White House.

- bill