Nader did not "cost Gore the election." Nader voters didn't "waste their vote."
It's more accurate to say that the huge proportion of people who didn't vote at all cost Gore the election.
It's much more accurate to say that Gore cost Gore the election, by not providing sufficient motivation for that vast majority. Gore, and the "New Democrats", the people who decided that the only way to compete against the Hard-Core Right-Wingers was to move to the middle.
Maybe if the Democrats had the balls to stand for something again, to be something more than Not Republican, they could actually have motivated some of the people who Just Don't Give A Damn Anymore -- the people who've given up.
Yes, I put my vote in for Gore. Even after the insanity of Dubya's reign, though, I'm not entirely sure that I should have. Gore and the rest of the New Democrats aren't exactly The People's Friends -- they just align themselves with different corporations. I have no doubt that Gore would have proved the lesser of two evils -- but not that he would be a "good". His "moderate" politics favor the RIAA, Carnivore, the WTO, and "most favored nation" status for the World's Largest New Market, despite its dismal human rights record.
The difference between the Republicans and the New Democrats is that the New Democrats prefer more prosperous, contented serfs.
I let myself be governed by fear in 2000, fear of the specter of a Conservative-dominated Supreme Court and the "lasting damage" that could result if a Republican President appointed another member.
I did not vote FOR Gore. I voted AGAINST Bush.
And that's wrong. That's not the way democracy is supposed to work. That's not the way this nation is supposed to work. We're supposed to make these decisions based on who'll do the most good, not the least damage.
I am tired of the Lesser of Two Evils. I'm tired of having to vote against candidates, because neither of the dominant party have anyone I can vote for.
I will not succumb to a "Democracy" ruled by Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.