I can't remember the date, but I remember when the Iraq War talk was heating up, Gore came out and made one of the clearer, more sensible assessments of the situation (to me anyway) and laying out the lack of wisdom in pursuing that path to war, and I realized how different the country and the world might have been (admittedly, who knows for sure...) if not for those 600 votes.

Anyway, I don't blame him for Gore's loss... (Gore lost 'cause he didn't talk more like he did in that speech I'm recalling during the election itself), but I do think Nader is fundamentally and dangerously wrong when he asserts that there's no significant difference between the two parties.

There's plenty of liberals, many more liberal than Nader, working within the Democratic Party. It takes mental fortitude to work within a party, knowing you won't get everything you want. It's too easy for any of us to say because this party or that party doesn't do exactly what I think they should, they're worthless. Cop out. I'm not impressed with his indulgent, Quixotian presidential bids. Maybe if Nader had been actively campaigning for Gore, that umpteen percent of Nader's supporters that, as you said, would have just stayed home if not for Nader, would have been convinced to get out and support Gore... and then we would almost certainly not been in Iraq right now, and the world would look like a different place (better or worse depending on your politics), so how could you then begin to make the argument that the candidate you pick, if they're called a Democrat or a Republican, doesn't make a difference?

While I agree that there are certainly differences between the parties, one can hardly argue that they are worlds apart. After all, every administration, be it Democrat or Republican, has overseen increased defense budget spending, bloating of the budget in general and a (seeming) decrease in its culpability to the American public. All of the major party candidates this election cycle stand to further this trend. While Nader may be wrong, he's not that wrong.

I don't have much patience for the idea that Gore's election would have lead to a magical fairy America.

Lucky for you, GavinA, the so-well-coordinated-that-they-­­still-mystify-and-control-Ame­ricans 9/11 terrorists preferred a Republican: someone they trusted to give their people such things as a war, take from them their oil, and (because he would never try any Iraqis for the crime of 9/11) spring all the glories that can be known as Homeland Security upon his fellow citizens.

Superdelegate Al hasn't done much for the troops since the spotlight shifted from him, has he? It appears that he thinks like Obama and Clinton: nothing that's worth doing ought to be begun or even considered unless the right person is in the White House and isn't simply in Congress (and sort of legitimizing Congress, the way the forefathers probably intended) or even totally free of the constraints of any political office but still with millions and millions of his or her own dollars to spend.