For people who honestly thought that Nader was the best representative of their views, I couldn't totally hold it against them for voting that way. But some of the Nader people I read about were just nuts, like thinking that a Bush victory would result in a major backlash that would pull the country way to the left, and result in a major electoral shift to considerably more left-wing policies in '04. That was so insane that I could barely comprehend it.

And Nader is Quinn's backup ... after Bush. He likes Bush because "9/11 required a strong response" (or somesuch, I'm paraphrasing) and invading Iraq was just the asskicking that the Muslims deserved. Oy. He definitely paled in comparison to Maher.

Interesting Haggai... I never thought about that rationale for voting Nader in 2000 and certainly don't endorse it now, but it may end up being vindicated in the end... there certainly has been a backlash. It hasn't resulted in a move to the left yet, but there's still that possibility (I personally think Kerry will win in a landslide, which will give him a lot of room to set policy).

Mithras -- did you see Dennis Miller on Leno last night? I find it fascinating that all these right of center commedians are getting out there just now -- also that Miller was opposite Bill Clinton on Letterman.

A move to the left as far as Ralph Nader is on most of the issues? That's obviously a fantasy. And I'd say that whatever backlash is out there comes mostly from a delayed realization of how right-wing this administration really is, a fact they took great pains to conceal in the 2000 election.

paul-
No, I didn't see it. I think the entertainment people are just trying to make a buck, and that if you're going to combine comedy and politics, then you need to have liberal comedians and conservative comedians just to make sure you get the whole market.

Haggai -- obviously the electorate won't be moving to the Nader left anytime soon, but the Bush admin certainly has a shot at pushing the electorate to the left at least some. It's at least a lite version of what your Nader crazies had in mind, I think. I doubt they expected anything more than a move in the general electorate to the left of Gore, which may well have happened -- assuming you're talking about the Gore of 2000.

Can someone explain to me what the hell Colin Quinn is talking about? If I follow his logic, having three candidates would make our democracy three times as bad as fascism?

On another note, Colin Quinn was the worst anchor Saturday Night Live ever had. I say this not because he's conservative, but because he was never funny.

I saw Clinton on Letterman. (I've always been a Letterman guy.) Dave made some crack about Clinton being a few points ahead of Kerry in the polls. That seemed about right. Clinton is a vastly better candidate than Kerry will ever be.

We might go the rest of our lives without seeing another candidate as good as Clinton. He makes it all look really easy, when it's anything but that. Ever since FDR, probably the only other national candidate who could match Clinton's political talent was Reagan, or maybe JFK on his better days.