Actually Amos, that psychology doesn't work on me. I understand that it does work for Republicrats who think the worst thing that could happen on this planet is living with another 4 years of Bush. I happen to believe in the resilience of the American people. Once they get beat down far enough, they will rise up, and make change. But it may take some years of Republican rule, and a majority Republican appointed Supreme Court, to wake the American electorate up to what is happening and saying they won't take it anymore.

That means I believe in letting the democratic process work itself out. If that means I never see another Democratic president in my life time, then that is what it means.

I see no paradigm shift in the Democratic party as a result of their losing control of Congress and the White House, and the Supreme Court intervention in the 2000 election. I think it will take at least four more years of Bush to wake up the Democratic party and the American electorate. It is a risk I am willing to take, because I am committed to democratic principles, and to working for change outside the two party system, which is what I have done my entire adult life.

Obviously, voting for Nader isn't a risk you are willing to take, and that is fine. But there is no need for us to demonize one another because we disagree.

Demonizing Nader supporters is a tried and true Republicrat establishment tactic to try and scare people into supporting the presumed nominee. If the presumed nominee became president, he would do nothing to end the graft and corruption ruling the nation. Nothing. He is an extreme militarist, and every bit as dangerous as Bush in that regard. He is certainly no civil libertarian.