So you know, I have felt in the past much as it seems you do. However, I grew out of it, and so can you.

It's worth mentioning that if it wasn't for the efforts of a progressive candidate, neither of the celebrity candidates would give a damn about feeding the poor.

That is correct. And was this progressive candidate named Ralph Nader? No. Did this progressive candidate siphon votes from the less-progressive candidate in favor of the fascist candidate? No. Big difference.

I'll likely vote for Obama in a general election. But I'm opposed to this notion that there's no worth in a third major party.

I'm opposed to that notion too. However, I don't believe that merely my opposing it will make it go away. That's currently the difference between us. You need to accept reality.

Again...want to be mad at someone, vent it at the 49-54% that voted for W. Not the 1-2% who want to exercise their right to vote as they see fit. That's just petty.

Each person deserves blame for the Bush debacle commensurate with their contribution. Someone who voted for Bush twice is beyond hope. Someone who voted for Nader over Gore in 2000 is an idealist who hopefully has learned that the world is not a storybook. (That includes me, of course, but I live in California and would not have voted for Nader if I wasn't sure Gore would win my state.) Someone who votes for Nader repeatedly over a democrat, given the type of republican candidates, is not much different from someone who voted twice for Bush. Perhaps a bit more friendly, but no less stupid.

only have of the people who vote Nader would otherwise vote Democrat, a THIRD would vote Republican. In other words, your calculation about him "stealing" the votes Gore would have needed to win is not just arrogant, it is dead wrong, because Bush would have gotten a third. Presumably, th rest wouldn't vote at all.

You know that Bush "won" by 537 votes, right? Are you suggesting that, of the 80,000 Floridans who voted for Nader, had a third of them voted for Bush (26,400) and half of them voted for Gore (40,000), and the rest not voted, that Gore wouldn't have won?

Sorry, but what you need is a calculator.

Free advice: learn how to state your case to middle America. And learn how to OutRove Rove.

This coming from someone who wants to vote for a candidate who's exploratory committee is likely to be funded by people like Karl Rove, is pretty rich.

I just don't get this twisted logic: Somehow, because many Nader voters are progressives, they have a responsibility to vote for Gore instead because he can achieve more for their cause?!

It sounds like you do get it. You've just summed it up perfectly.

How about an analogy to make it stick: Say I need to get to the hospital for some life-threatening medical emergency. I can take my car, with its internal combustion engine, which adds carbon to the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Or I can take my hydrogen-powered vehicle that only emits water. Now, the fact that there is no fuel available for the hydrogen-powered car means that I can sit in it and go "vroom vroom," but I won't actually go anywhere. While I'm sitting there, I can feel content that, hey, look at me, I'm carbon neutral!! Unfortunately, I'm also going nowhere and will soon die.

This country desperately needs to move in a particular direction from its current course. It's a life-threatening emergency for millions. We have a choice of how to move in that direction. Once choice will take us some distance in that direction, but not under ideal circumstances. One choice would theoretically take us there under perfect circumstances, but in practice it won't take us anywhere at all. And one choice will take us in the exact opposite direction.

Which are you going to choose?

They should have no trouble portraying McCain as the "endless war" loose cannon candidate. And using quotes like these is just the way to do it.