After Corbu

This is painful for a former Nader supporter* to admit, but I grant all Scott’s arguments about Nader throwing the 2000 election to Bush. However, I maintain that Clinton, not Nader, is the real culprit by governing as a center-right candidate which disillusioned the left enough to create sympathy for a Nader’s ego-run when faced with the prospect of continuing the status quo (which Gore represented, righty or wrongly).
When there is blame to be assigned among multiple parties for a disagreeable circumstance (e.g. Bush), my rule of thumb is to note the power disparity that exists among the potential culprits and go from there. This suggest that Clinton/Gore did far, far more to lose the left than Nader did to win it.

Therefore: If Clinton isn’t a tool, no Bush. It really is that simple.

—-

*A supporter in spirit anyway, as I was not possessing of the franchise at the time due to archaic age restrictions. But I did protest Gore over his UnoCal investments (Save the U’wa!). Which certainly seems petty in retrospect. Oh well.