Nader step down: Editorial in the Guardian telling Nader to step aside.

[UCLA Dem]

Why don't the editors of our newspapers do the same?

Enough is enough. He's made his point, but there are bigger things at stake.

We need some NYT and LAT editors playing referee here. Its gone to far.

[Not Me]

1. How is that any different from a television conglomerate trying to sway

the election?
People have to figure this one out on their own.

[UCLA Dem]

3. it would be an editorial, not news. how is different from endorsing Kerry?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

2. If he's made a point, it escapes me.

Completely. Utterly.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Plus, if he drops out now, he can claim that he swayed the election for K.

When Kerry wins despite him, any shred of influence he ever will have been able to claim will be buried along with his reputation. He will be a dinosaur.

[eataTREE]

5. Forget Nader, he's utterly irrelevant.

Nader is not going to pull a signifigant portion of the vote. He'll get well under 1% nationally.

Furthermore, unlike in 2000, the people who will be voting for Nader this time round are not potential Kerry voters. Anyone still voting for Nader is someone who would consider it terminally unhip to ever vote for any mainstream candidate -- think self-styled "anarchists" whose idea of a good time is throwing a brick through a Starbucks window. If Nader wasn't on the ballot, they'd vote for Cobb, or some other third-party candidate, or write in Che Guevara, or not vote "out of protest, man!!"

We have enough stress in our lives at the moment without worrying about those few folks who refuse to vote for any candidate that fails to live up to their unrealistic standards of progressive moral purity.

[comradebillyboy]

6. right you are

you must be right cuz you agree with me