I recently watched on C-SPAN most of the debate between Howard Dean and Ralph Nader. It was a very civil debate to say the least, with Nader repeating points we've heard him make many times before, and Dean attempting to differentiate the many great views that Nader holds with how it will be better to vote Dem rather than Nader.

If you listen to Nader in a vacuum, you can't help but agree with nearly every point he makes. However, when you put his role in proper context, contrasting how he might be able to affect this election for Bush and against Kerry, and when you think of what a 2nd-term Bush could be like, with no concerns for reelection and thus no-holds-bar, whelp, you must then listen to Nader's lips move in silence. As Dean says in the debate, the stakes are simply too high this time around as we're dealing with peoples' lives.

Nader's idealism is just too ideal, or fantastic, at this juncture in history. Much more so than in 2000, the proper course of action is to go with pragmatic idealism (Kerry) over super-ideal idealism. It's just that much more disturbing to continue to read reports that the RNC is actively helping Ralph get on state ballots. And yet, he still wants us to believe he'll take more votes away from Bush than Kerry, i.e. he's insulting the intelligence of the folks he's actively appealing to for votes -- hmm, no wonder the Republicans love him! (If it quacks like a duck....).

As I've said, once he gets a bit more ego-driven air time ala these types of debates, my hope is he drops out and then vociferously backs Kerry/Edwards. I can't say this route is very likely given the lengths to which Nader appears to want to bash Kerry as much as he does Bush, but one can always hope he has an epiphany in the night and wakes up drenched in sweat, realizing the err of his ways.

P.S. On June 23rd, Nader urged Kerry to select Edwards as VP, and yet during this debate I don't recall Ralph saying anything at all, much less anything positive, about this eventual selection.