There have been some pretty nasty diaries about Nader voters and supporters. I don't think anyone is served by calling Nader voters names, or spreading stereotypes about them (remember how Dean supporters were supposedly "privilaged, white and straight"?). This kind of infighting doesn't do anybody any good - except the right-wing bigots and corporate looters who benefit from a divided left.
Let's argue over tactics in a civilized way. I voted for Nader in 2000, but I now think that the best move for the left is to elect John Kerry - and I'll argue this point with today's Nader supporters. However, I respect the hesitation of many on the left to support someone who voted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and NCLB. I'm prepared to do this, but some still hesitate. But we disagree on tactics, not the issues.
The concerns of Nader voters should not be dismissed. Nader's support in swing states (like my home state of Oregon) was substantial in 2000. Kucinich got double digit support in the Oregon primary - support that was meant to send a message to Kerry.
Kerry's response has been pretty positive. His campaign is starting to reach out to voters who want action on issues like health care reform and "free" trade-related job loss, as well as other issues that were left behind by Dems during the 1990s. Kerry's choice of running mate will also send a message - a message that I hope will bring even more disaffected Democrats back into our big tent.
I believe that the big tent that the DailyKos community represents is truly remarkable and a powerful tool for change in this country. However, the tent should be big enough to include those who have yet to be convinced of the efficacy of voting for John Kerry or other politicians that they still have serious disagreements with.
But let's work together, not call each other names, okay?