Did Nader put Bush in office? Tough question: Gore lost his campaign, but it's not clear to me that Bush won his in any meaningful sense of the word. Did Nader lure voters who would not have voted otherwise (and sure as heck wouldn't have voted for Gore)? Sure. Did Nader divert votes from Gore? Again, I think the answer has to be "sure." It's not so much a scapegoat mentality so much as a frustration: progressives find Nader's stances on several issues more appealing (understandable) and so want to vote based on principle.

My problem: fracturing progressives between those who want to vote for an "electable" candidate -- whatever that means -- and those who want a candidate whose views closely align with the traditional left is what's going to keep Shrub in office. Nader can tell Democrats to chill until November, but the fact is that Kerry and Bush are running neck-and-neck in the polls and Kerry needs as much support as possible in order to beat Shrub.

Now, to be fair: Clinton won in '92 (albeit in a much more convincing fashion) when Perot jumped in (then out, then back in again) the ring. You'd think progressives would learn though... What does Nader have to gain by running? The Green Party isn't backing him, we've seen what four years with Shrub has done to this country, and Kerry is a viable (maybe? Who knows...) alternative. But without full liberal support, Kerry faces a much tougher battle. How does Nader's campaign contribute to the political discourse other than to put Shrub in the catbird seat?

Was Kerry my first choice? Nope. Will I vote for him in the primary? I still haven't decided (I've got two more weeks). But if he's the Democratic candidate, will I vote for him? You betcha.

Would Nader make a good president? I have no idea. I think part of the problem is that there's a great deal of overlap between idealists and liberals. Ideally, there would be a candidate to vote for, rather than against. This is not an ideal world folks. Supporting Nader's candidacy this year won't make it so.

Okay -- on to Shrub's marriage ban. My question: WHY?? Surely people understand that the concept of marriage is already in the midst of evolution? As a society, we've tinkered with:

the unity concept (you mean I'm my own legal entity?)
racial restrictions (my marriage helps contaminate the gene pool! or it would, if we had kids...)
age restrictions (anyone remember how old Juliet was?)
wealth restrictions

How is it that the elimination of another restriction means that the world is coming to an end? Or that marriage is somehow threatened? If a government's going to associate particular legal rights and obligations with a particular type of relationship AND restrict access to that relationship, it's gotta either disassociate those rights and obligations from the relationship (civil unions for all) or remove those access restrictions.

And I'm sorry -- I've got real doubts that the legislative process will take care of those restrictions because we're talking about extending civil rights to those who lack those civil rights. In some sense, the majority belongs to an exclusive club and does not want to open membership. After all, the legislative process failed to "take care" of racial civil rights until after the Civil War, acts of civil disobedience and "judicial activism" like Brown.