Sporting anticorporate buttons, peace bandannas and tie-dyed shirts, the members of the Green Party of the United States - whose support of a Ralph Nader candidacy four years ago many believe cost Democrats the White House in 2000 - are in the midst of another national convention. This time, they are openly and passionately split about whether to endorse Mr. Nader and campaign enthusiastically against both President Bush and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, or nominate another candidate who will not directly attack the Democratic nominee in crucial swing states.
"It is an honest difference of opinion about what to do in the 2004 election cycle," said David Cobb, a Green activist from Texas who is seeking his party's presidential nomination and goes into Saturday's nomination vote with the most delegates. "Because we have a major problem, and that is George W. Bush. He's a huge problem. Bush needs to be out."
Normally, the internal disputes of a relatively small third party would be of little concern in the midst of a sprawling national election. But with indications that this year's tally could prove just as tight as that in 2000, the degree to which swing voters side with the Greens and other political parties may well determine the outcome in some states. The Green Party members themselves know the stakes. A forum for the presidential candidates on Thursday night - Mr. Nader was not there - turned into a shouting match between supporters of each side. And many Green supporters said that they knew that many Americans regarded them as the fringiest of the fringe, and that they were eager to shed the party's spoiler image.
"We know that many see us as very young and not to be taken seriously," said Juscha Robinson, head of the party's national campaign committee. "But the best way to be taken seriously is to continue to build the party. The dispute here is about what is the best way of doing that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/politics/campaign/26greens.html