So here it is: Many Dems blame the re-electing of Bush on people voting for Ralph Nader. Now it is not my intent to judge whether Nader was a great candidate and worthy of being President or not. However, when a third party candidate IS good and SHOULD be elected but up until voting time has NOT really been a top runner in any of the national polls, should you vote for him (assuming you like the guy/gal)? Why, if you genuinely think a 3rd party candidate is the best thing for this country, should you throw your vote to someone who is a piece of crap in your eyes? Why should you change? Shouldn't all the *moronic* people voting for the top Dem runner change, not you? Currently I see Bill Richardson as my choice for Presidency, even if it is a little early to tell who is going to be top runner/best candidate or not. However, if he chose to run as 3rd party instead so he could still run, I would vote for him. Come Nov. 2008, I vote for Richardson as 3rd party, and some crackpot Republican wins the election, is it MY (or anyone elses' who voted for Richardson) fault for the electing of a very poorly qualified candidate?