Just wanted to respond to Midchuck, who wrote:

If these two are, respectively, the two best that the American two-party system can come up with to lead the country, then the American two-party system has had it, and needs to be done away with. --no argument there!

Nader isn't the answer. --but is he maybe a better choice than the other two? No candidate is gonna be perfect.

Everything I've read about Nader that wasn't written by his worshippers indicates to me that he's a demagogue and a hypocrite, --and Al Gore isn't a hypocrite???

I would be interested in hearing examples of this demagoguery and hypocrisy you attribute to Nader...

At least Nader is not a death-monger in the pocket of big money...

whereas the two major party candidates are merely dull beyond human conception. --true enough.

Did anyone ever become an anarchist at age 59 when they were a Republican when they were 30? Makes no sense. --not sure who you refer to here, but as you yourself would probably willingly agree, the major parties have changed quite a bit in the last few decades...I would imagine MANY people have changed their political affiliations and stances in that length of time...anyone who remains stuck in the same worldview after 30 years just might be someone too stubborn or obtuse to realize the world is changing and it is sometimes important to change with it...even if it only means defining one's terms differently. A "Republican" today is surely not the same as a "Republican" of 1970...