Okay, here's what bugs me...I do agree that there are some blinded by right wing propoganda stating that Nader is evil, etc. But not many. Because, you know what? People interested in right wing propaganda wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

But what burns me up is the left-wing propoganda that claims we have "republicrats" or "repubrocats" or that "reality shows we have one party with a slightly more liberal but basically useless wing called the "Democrats." "Reality shows?" Nice you've cited your evidence there, buddy!

I, too am a lefty, and anyone who thinks there is no difference between the Democrat and Republicans is fooling him/herself. This is where Nader lost my respect: claiming that there would be no difference between Gore and Bush, and that he therefore represented the only viable alternative. You know what? We have gone to war with Iraq and killed hundreds of innocent people along with the guilty ones. We have enacted legislation harmful to the environment and to our rights to free speech and information. We have curtailed civil liberties to an alarming extent. And none of this would have happened under Gore.

So Nader was lying, and he knew he was lying when he said it, and most Americans knew he was lying too. Does it make it better that he wasn't trying to win but to get 5% of the vote? No, it makes it worse. He sacrificed human lives and human rights in a low-stakes gamble.

Do I think he's evil or a demon? No. But I think he screwed up big-time, lied as badly as any other candidate, compromised his much-touted integrity, and, as Ron points out, hasn't the skills to run a country anyway. Why would anyone vote for him?