Sarcasm is almost never a debate winner. And it's certainly not loving and inclusive. But let's move on.

Look, most of the people I know who don't want Nader to run acknowledge that he has a brilliant career of service. And they hate to see him trash it this way. It's that he's obviously tipping power - power he can't gain for himself, not in a million years - towards a very bad man through his campaign. From a simple, moral standpoint, I dislike the man for that. I do not want him to be my leader if he cannot be a pragmatist as well as an idealist. Moreover, I lost a great deal of respect for him when he showed up on "The Daily Show" and told me that people wanted to steal my genes. I think he has a screw or two loose, myself.

He does have a right to run if he can do so. Obviously he does. But do we have to be happy about it, knowing that the cost of his pride (or misguided judgement, at best) has cost us four more years of a man whose Presidency causes people to die, every day? A man not even popularly elected? I say that not only do we not have to cheer him, it is our duty to try to stop him. With reason, yes. And we should be more gentle in our language to a public servant and his obviously well-meaning supporters. But we must try to stop him. Because when Bush is President, people die. Wrong acts are committed daily. Do I think no one will die if Kerry is President? No, I don't think that for a second. Do I think that he is a better man than Bush, and a better leader? Yes, I do. And I think he's a better man than Nader, too. Kerry risked his life to save one man - this is fact. Nader will not risk a quiet retirement to save a nation.