Too positive?
Have the Democrats been too positive? The NYT thinks so: ["Missing Ingredient in 2004: Attack Ads by Democrats"]. This is very interesting. For some reason, I remember the NYT lecturing candidates in the past for being too negative and here is one reporter advocating the opposite. Ugh, will they make up their minds already?

Nader - 2004
Here is some more stuff suggesting that Nader will be running again in 2004.
The Oregonian has a profile of Jason Kafoury, the college kid who is helping Ralph make the big decision: ["The Monday Profile: Jason Kafoury"].
Despite assertions he won't be running as a Green, in Maine, the Greens are considering drafting him for their ballot line: ["Maine Green Independent Party to Caucus Across State"].
Blogger Daniel Munz gives a pretty balanced view of the pros and cons: ["Ralph: Nadir"].
But some, like John Pearce, keep their blinders and march in lockstep over the Democratic cliff while affecting no real change for themselves or the people: ["Progressives doom their causes by voting third party"].
Others, like Fran Shor, make some good points against a Nader run: ["What's the Historical Alternative?"].
Those who don't think the Nader option is important should read this piece from the New Republic, about retribution against Dean supporters: ["Oops!"]. See how the Democrats eat their own young? Why would you not want other voting options? Why should the voters continue to support this kind of behavior?