Wow. Even by your standards that is a particularly pathetic argument to make.
Look, it's a dead issue. It'd be like some Republican today whining about the Whitewater scandal. In 2000 there was some criticism of Gore among the left, and that was probably one of the reason. But after almost 7 years of Bush attacking Gore over that seems like the cops chasing after a kid who shoplifted from some store when someone's attempting a multi-million dollar robbery at the bank next door. The fact that the Al Gore of 2007 is much cooler than Al Gore 2000 also plays into this of course, but this is really something you'd have a difficult time getting...well anyone in America to care about at this point. Here's something to try, go register on DU, make a new post with all that information, and see how much anyone cares.
And I have criticized Ralph Nader decision to run in 2004 many times here before. As it split the Green Party and seemed like an ego trip (That doesn't mean I hate him or think he shouldn't have been allowed to run). This is no new opinion coming from me. But you just think I have some Ralph Nader love in.
No one has said he should not have been allowed to run. The question is why you constantly praise Nader, call him a man of great political courage, attack people who would've voted for Gore over him in 2000 and defend every single thing he does from my attacks (like his alliance with Dobson).
Poll
