I suppose (as an outsider) one big question is how America would be served by having a strong third party, or (perhaps even more striking) the breakup of the Republican/Democratic duopoly. In Canada and Britain, third parties originally brought Conservatives in to power, because they broke up the left to centre coalition. This is what Nader threatens to do: break up the Democratic coalition and let in Republicans for a period of time. The question Steinem and others ask (especially concerning the very powerful Supreme Court) is whether what could be carried out in that period of time is more supremely damaging than the possibility of breaking up the old politics, and threatening the future of left/centre left politics for awhile. Right wingers couldn't care less about this. In other countries the regeneration of the social democratic movement required some time in the wilderness. It is not clear (again as an outsider) that the Clinton "movement to the centre" was a regeneration of Democratic politics: rather (as the Nader phenomenon indicates), a degeneration towards the right. So maybe it would be a good thing to break up the centre left: but is the interim price worth paying? That seems to me to be what is going on. Just my two cents (as a sometime degenerate 3rd Party maven).

yours, Peter T.