I guess I'd have to go with Buchanan. Al Sharpton would be a complete disaster, and Nader would be much worse than most people think. While Buchanan's not a great choice, I think that there's a chance that we'd still have a country left when he's done. I'm not sure the same could be said for the other two.

Jeez and I thought it was tough picking girlfriends between Alba, Hu and Knowles.....

Here we have two certifiable bull goose loonies and a guy who has legitimate claim to the title of the most boring man on the planet.

Nader I guess, although it might be cynical fun to see just how bad Buchanan could be.

Years ago I'd have said Nader,but he has lost much of my respect if not all of it.I'd go with Sharpton-but if he won,I'd fear for his life.(Too many racists yet).

Nader for sure. Much more in the center than the other two and might, just might, be able to reel in some of the corporate criminal behavior problems.

I guess I'd have to step over the other two dung heaps and go with Pat. The least of three evils.

This is the hardest question I have EVER seen on any board on this site. 2 total whack jobs and a narcolepsy- causing consumer advocate. Nader by default, though the unintentional comedy factor of the other 2 crackpots is off the charts.

At least we could get four years of good laughs out of Al. Nothing would happen...he'd be too busy getting his feet out of his mouth so he could fill it with crow.

Pat Buchanan... we'd at least get originalists on the bench and a return to federalism.

Whew! I'd take Nader. God help us if we get Buchanan.