Will Nader save Bush from having to take da bait of Kerry all by himself? (sorry)
David Broder's new column remembers how John Kerry defeated popular Mass. Governor William Weld: by drawing him into a series of debates that showed his true policy positions, undercutting his personality/likability advantage. Nader, Broder argues, will keep Kerry from being able to force Bush out into the open:

"If you assume, as most Republicans and Democrats I've interviewed do, that Bush prefers as few debates as possible this year, Nader's candidacy gives Bush a great card to play. Whoever the sponsor, Bush as the incumbent can bargain for Nader's inclusion -- or use the issue of Nader's role to delay negotiations and reduce the number of debates that can be scheduled.

And if Nader gets into the debates, you can count on him making his argument that both the Democrats and Republicans in Washington are puppets in the hands of corporate interests -- a contention that thoroughly undercuts one of the major themes of Kerry's campaign, the argument that he would fight the "special interests" he claims have free range in the Bush administration."

If Nader is denied entry into the debates, Kerry will be blamed and could face backlash. If Nader is allowed in, Kerry will lose a fundamental tool in defining Bush, and Ralph will have cost the Senator more than just some votes of the far left. That is not to say that Kerry's plan would have worked. Before Bush is underestimated, I'll try not to forget that Al Gore was widely expected to overcome personality deficits to George W. through outclassing him in the debates, and that didn't exactly happen, even without Nader there. If Kerry's strategy centers on debates as a linch-pin, he's got more problems than Nader facing him.