Thomas -
Thanks for the compliment. Being able to grasp the obvious is a definite step up for me. I used to think the whole system was too hopelessly messed up to fix. The conclusion I ran to was that the only hope was to blow it up and start all over. Unfortunately, when you start over with the same people and the same history you end up in the same place. It does matter who you vote for. But you have to remember what you're voting for, too. You're voting for someone who will govern the country as it is, while moving it gently toward what you want it to be.

When I think of Nader, I see Jimmy Carter. A vote for Carter was, as Hunter Thompson put it, a "leap of faith". He was a guy from outside DC who was going to radically change the political scene. All he did while in office was make Ron Reagan look good by comparison. That is not a mistake I will make again. I admire Nader. I always have. But just as Carter's best work was done after he was out of office, Nader's is done as a voice crying out in the wilderness. What Nader would have to do to get elected would effectively silence that voice; what he would have to do while in office would emasculate it.

If I'm too much of a pragmatist for some, that's OK. The revolution (which I have been praying for since the 60's) is not going to start in Washington DC. The revolution is an internal process. It starts here. It starts where people discuss the ideas that may (or may not) improve the world. You may think that Nader is the answer. I think he's dead wrong on trade and would be a terrible president. Who's right isn't as important as the discussion.