Moffett and the rest of Monsanto's lobbyists love Al Gore because, while Gore did not invent the internet, he is the techno-pol responsible for shoving Monsanto's inadequately tested, possibly dangerous and definitely unlabeled genetically engineered foods down the throats of American eaters. Now Toby is trying to shove Al Gore down voters' throats but that's going over about as well as milk from Monsanto's hormone-injected cows.

Unfortunately others less identified with corporate power are also hammering away at the venerable Green Party candidate as a "spoiler," although just days ago Ralph Nader was too marginal to debate. Prominent middle-aged figures obviously much too wedded to the Democratic party and its contributors, well-known names from Hollywood and the labor, minority, feminist and environmental NGO world, are furiously stumping for Gore. One hopes that as they barnstorm from Madison to Seattle to Eugene to San Francisco they grab some of those airplane barf bags, because for true progressives to defend the Clinton/Gore record is indeed a queasy assignment.

I agree that a Bush/Cheney administration would be bad news for most of what I personally hold sacred. However, voting for Al Gore is absolutely not the answer. Every four years there comes the less reprehensible corporate candidate. This year it's Al Gore playing the role. If he wins, in four years he would star in a repeat performance, and then maybe the esteemed senator of the insurance and prescription drug cartels, Joe Lieberman, would step up from his understudy position. No thanks, its time for change.

I'm working and voting for Ralph Nader because he is giving voice and leadership to the growing pro-democracy movement needed to bust the stranglehold that corporations have over our lives and our system of government. If Nader were running as the Democrat.... But of course, that would never happen because the system is so rigged that only a candidate beholden to corporate special interest money can today win either party's presidential nomination.

Even if Bush wins the White House there is some light in that dark cloud. Nader has certainly galvanized the grassroots to confront and blunt either candidate's pro-business agenda, and if voters reject the Democratic ticket it might inspire some inside that party to re-think its partnerships with big business.

Bush in the White House would also guarantee that four years from now we will not have to endure the apologists' excuses about how 'Yes, President Gore has been a disappointment but he had to compromise to win a second term. Re-elect him and he will move in our direction.'

I'm joyfully working and casting my vote for Ralph Nader and the growing movement to reclaim American democracy. No matter who wins I will celebrate what the Nader/LaDuke campaign has accomplished in forcing the single biggest issue of our time -- corporate domination -- to the front burner of citizen awareness and action. Nader/LaDuke has succeeded in this despite a pittance of money, hostile news media awash in political advertising lucre, the enforced censorship that kept them out of the debates and now desperate outpourings of fear and loathing courtesy of corporate lobbyists for Gore such as Toby Moffett.

Be warned of course that merely voting for anyone is not enough. Commit yourself to the understanding that the growing pro-democracy movement sparked by Ralph Nader's candidacy is just the beginning, and you are part of it. Commit yourself to personally helping it succeed with your time, sweat and contributions in the months and years ahead long after November 7th.

John Stauber is the founder and executive director of the Center for Media & Democracy, a non-profit dedicated to public interest reporting on government and industry PR. He writes for and edits the Center's investigative quarterly, PR Watch. www.prwatch.org He is the co-author of the book Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry. stauber@compuserve.com

###