John, I think the operative word is "soft support". :) With a Republican Congress I think Mr. Nader could look forward to more failed policies.

I agree with Mr. Nader, BTW and would vote for him if I thought he had a chance.

As to the failed policies of Mr. Clinton, in all fairness, there was no compromise with an intransigent Congress. Bi-partisanship has become the biggest joke in electoral history. I think it's amazing that Clinton was able to do what he did under the circumstances. Would Mr. Nader realistically be able to do the same?

Gene McCarthy was an idealistic candidate as well and as has been mentioned before, helped Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush get elected. I didn't care for Hubert Humphrey but if I had it to do over again I would have voted for him.

The problem is that the electoral system as it stands today is dependent on too much money required to elect these guys and it has become a personality contest. Mr. Nader is noble enough to want to change all of that but in so doing he will have to take on the various lobbist interests. He can't do that at this point. People are too dependent on their guns, their nicotine and their narcotics to want to take the bull by the horns.

There is an old aphorism, "you can't do just one thing". It's a high context problem that requires a kind of Parkinson's Law. To dismantle the electoral system, you have to dismantle the various interest groups, to dismantle them, you have to moblize people to care, to get people to care you have to wake them up so they will give up that which keeps them asleep, booze, drugs, tobacco, rich food, obesity,poverty, lack of education, the list goes on.

Voltaire had it right. "Cultivate your garden".

In the meantime we have to live in this peculiar political untenable world of the lesser of two evils. I can't see Mf. Nader carrying Texas or Georgia anytime soon. By all means write your letter to Mr. Gore and lets hold his feet to the fire if he gets in.

Frank