Last presidential election I voted for Nader. Shamelessly, but to many of my friends dismay. Needless to say my decision left me feeling like a stuck to my guns. But upon these last 4 years of the bush administration I have been horified by not voting for the "lesser of two evils" and the whims of our president. Now again nearing the the same situation. (Feeling completely helpless.) Especially given the florida fiasco that took place last election is Bush a force bound for 8 years, regardless of my careful consideration and voting rights?

He isn't bound to be the next president, IF more people vote for the person who has the best chance of winning that ISN'T bush.
Just locally, more republicans voted than ALL the other parties put together. That right there is sad. Just because people aren't republican doesn't mean they shouldn't vote! WHY don't more people turn out for the polls?
I don't care what people do after Bush is gone, but seriously, now is the time to forgo the "vote for who YOU like best" thing. Cuz if we don't band together, he will win again. I personally would rather have someone else who I dislike, but who isn't insane, christian to the point of shoving it down all our throats, and a freak.
Normally, I am ALL for the vote for who you like best thing, but not this year. Bush is just pure evil and we HAVE to get rid of him NOW.
Please people. Help me and fellow bush haters out with this one.
End of my rant. Sorry.

Yeah but despite recent statements that have taken the gleam off of Kerry even for me (C'mon man, get thee to San Francisco with some flowers for the newlyweds and stop being such a stick in the mud) he STILL has one of the most out there liberal records in congress. Hell, given things like Kuchinich's 95% approval rating from the National Right to life, you could argue that he's more crazy lefty than Kuchinich, and Kuchinich is a pretty crazy lefty. He's hardly in the same ballpark as the middle of the road, flip-flopping Gore. Now I don't think Gore was the "lesser of two evils" by a long shot (especially now that we've seen just how evil the "greater of two evils" actually is), but I really don't think that argument can even be used against Kerry. Sure it's still backing up an entrenched political party populated by the upper classes, but it's for a guy who's been consistent about backing very liberal ideology for a good twenty years now. And if one thing came out of this nominee process, it's that grass roots organizing can have a huge impact on the democratic party if people are interested. keep that up and maybe it doesn't have to be the party of a select few. I honestly think that if more people went to the trouble of researching voting records and past policy decisions Kerry would be they guy they like best, or at least liked enough not to feel bad about voting for him over Nader to oust the execrable Bush. There's a reason this whole "lesser of two evils" strategy is being revived to constant airplay on the likes of Fox News and it's not because they want you to be an informed voter.

We need to keep people excited about this, get our friends out to vote, keep the energy of the liberal base going. The most damaging thing that can happen now to smooth the way to a Bush victory is if all the energy that guys like Dean so successfully pumped into the democrats is allowed to dissapate. I for one want to see everyone who wants Bush out talking sassily about politics from now till November! Get out there to support ANY liberal candidate, people who are debating and involved are people who are excited and who will vote, anything to help keep that going is great.

Unless you live in Florida or New Hampshire, where Gore would have won the electoral vote had Nader not been on the ballot, there's no reason to feel guilty. I voted for Nader in 2000 as well, and I have no shame. I lived in a blue state (Rhode Island) at the time, and the polls were heavily favoring Gore. No matter which way I voted, Gore would have won in Rhode Island. And he did. So I saw no reason to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I voted for Nader not because I thought he would make a fantastic president, but because a) I would like to see third party candidates taken more seriously in a presidential election, and b) I hated Bush and I REALLY hated Gore. I could not in my heart of hearts vote for either one of them. So I voted for a guy I knew had no chance in hell.

ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I'm speaking strictly about 2000, not 2004. By the way, if Kerry doesn't flip-flop, then the Pope isn't Catholic: >http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540