Well Nader would not have been such a controversial figure in 2000 or 2004 if more people understood the electoral college. It is true that he didn't help Gore much in Florida and New Hampshire. It is reasonable to see him as a factor in those two states. Hindsight is 20/20.
However, voting for him in states like Utah, Montana, Alaska, Rhode Island and possibly even California makes sense. I understand the anitpathy towards him on the part of Democrats. But I think some of the animosity is misplaced. I saw a documentary on Air America, a network which I do like. One of the hosts was very rude to Nader. I think that was a bit unproffesional.
Perhaps people are a bit too willing to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. I think Nader could have addressed the spoiler question a little better. But his book "Crashing the Party" is one I would highly reccomend.
The Democrats would do well to take more responsibility for their own shortcomings. Plus the fact that Bush did as well as he did because many people are easily fooled.
The main thing is that Democrats need to pay more attention to liberal voters. For example, many Americans opposed the Iraq war. Taking the liberal vote for granted and spending all your time, money and especially rhetoric on a few swing voters in a few swing states is bad politics.
(I also think that whether Bush stole Ohio in 04 is open to debate).
Umm, they were mad at him because of Florida, not because he got votes in DC.
