(2 of 2)
Many liberals are torn about what to do. Do they follow their heart and vote for Nader or use their head and go with Gore? Some Nader allies have come up with interesting ways to solve their dilemma. Greg MacArthur, a philanthropist, is taking out newspaper ads in states that are considered safe for Gore (Massachusetts, New York) and safe for Bush (Texas, Colorado) urging progressives there to vote for Nader since the outcome there is a foregone conclusion. That strategy is meant to help Nader achieve his goal of securing 5% of the national vote so his Green Party can get federal matching funds in 2004. Another one that has popped up on the Web at nadertrader.org implores, "If you live in a swing state, contact a Gore-voting friend in a strongly Bush-leaning state and informally agree that your friend will vote for Nader, while you will vote for Al Gore." For his part, Nader says he doesn't care whether Bush or Gore wins. The two, he rails, are "part of one big corporate party," with no real differences. Indeed, Nader argues that former President George Bush was better than Bill Clinton is on issues like occupational safety. Nader also tells TIME that if he had been in the Senate, he would have voted to impeach Clinton: "He disgraced the office."
Unlike other long-shot candidates, Nader makes no pretense that he'll soon be settling into the Oval Office. What he wants is to build a permanent progressive force. "This is a new political movement," he says, eating his organic banana.