Ralph Nader ran as a Green in 1996...who won???
Last time I checked it didn't screw the Democrats.
Bill Clinton won with Ralph Nader running.
What you all fail to realize is the importance of having a nominee who can appeal to the people who might vote for
BOTH NADER AND BUSH.
John Kerry is not that guy.
John Edwards appeals to progressives, Democrats, Moderate (McCain) Republicans, Independents, Southerns, etc.
He, just like Clinton, appeals to a more broader base of voters, and that's important with Nader running.
Kerry is a lot closer to the Gore mold than Clinton (stiff, aloof, boring), and Edwards is a lot closer to the Clinton style that Kerry is (smooth, southern, charismatic).
Just look at some of the people who have endorsed Edwards.
Joel Rogers (
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040223&s=rogers ) and Christopher Hitchens (
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095158/ )???
Talk about different personalities and beliefs, but they agree on Edwards. You have the Democratic party, the Democratic ESTABLISHMENT I MEAN, lining up behind John Kerry because they intended for him to be the nominee a long time ago (that's why the convention was scheduled for Boston), and it is flying right over their heads that people from different groops all see Edwards as the best choice.
If you all think that John Kerry, with just the support of the Democratic party is good enough, then keep complaining about Ralph Nader.
I would much rather have a candidate who can win Nader's votes (Joel Rogers) and Bush's votes (McCain Republicans, southerners, and Christians), and that's John Edwards.
Bump Ralph Nader.
He doesn't scare me, because he doesn't hurt my choice for the nomination...