green in '04?
From Grist magazine: "Green Thumbs-Up: Don't let the Democrats frighten you away from voting your conscience" by Robert Franklin...
[I]t's tough not to see the current Democratic pleas as part of a pattern. It's not just, "Greens, don't run for president in 2004." It's, "Greens don't run. Not any time, not any race." Why not? Because, according to the Democrats' logic, the Republican candidate is always worse than their own. They're usually right about that, but that's an argument that can be made (and has been made) about almost any race in any year. It's an argument against progressive electoral politics in America. Period.
...and "Green Thumbs-Down: Don't gamble with your vote in 2004" by Norman Solomon:
It's impossible to know whether the vote margin between Bush and his Democratic challenger will be narrow or wide in November 2004. I've never heard a credible argument that a Nader campaign might help to defeat Bush next year. A Nader campaign might have no significant effect on Bush's chances -- or it could help Bush win. With so much at stake, do we really want to roll the dice this way?