One more thought about Nader.

He says that anyone who doesn't want him on the ballot is anti-democratic -- that having more candidates in an election is, by definition, good for democracy, no matter what the real-world implications of a particular candidacy may be.

Following that logic, shouldn't all of us -- or at least as many of us as possible -- try to get on the presidential ballot in as many states as we can? And shouldn't those of us who can't mount a petition drive to get on the ballot at least persuade as many of our friends and relatives as possible to vote for us as write-in candidates, even if (perhaps especially if) they're now planning to vote for Kerry?

After all, more choices are, by definition, better for democracy than fewer choices. So it doesn't matter if our friends and relatives back Kerry now. We should demand that they vote for us -- and tell them that they're anti-democratic supporters of a sold-out two-party duopoly if they don't.