T'would be interesting to know who is behind this.
Let's see, hmmmm, who stands to gain the most from a Third Party Candidate in '08?
A third party candidate tipped the election of 1844 to the 'Rats and the result was the Mexican War. A third party candidate in 1912 tipped the election to the 'Rats and we wound up being dragged into WWI.
A third party candidate (Pat Buchanan) almost tipped the 2000 election to Gore. Instead of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a War on Terror, we would have had national self-flagellation after 9/11, efforts to apologize to the Muslim world, a war on global warming, and perhaps a war on Christian "intolerance" of Islam.
So third party candidates can make a big difference even when they draw paltry numbers of votes.
The winner are polarizing candidates (that would be Hillary). The losers are the moderates.
Basically, the pro extremists will vote for the extremists (the pro hillary will vote for hillary) and the anti extremists will vote against hillary and for a possibly 3rd party.
The moderates who might attract the anti extremists (anti Hillery) will lose the anti extreme votes to a third party.
In a normal election, the moderate will attract the moderates and the "I don't like the moderate, but I hate the other guy" vote. With this scheme, the "i hate the other guy vote might go to a non moderate"
Put another way, a polarizing figure (hillary) has strength in that a lot of people like her and weakness in that other people hate her. If the anti hillary vote has many outlets, she can more easily win.
Polarizing candidates win and non polarizing candidates lose by this scheme.