It's all about the lesser of the evils at this point. I like Dean and I like what he stands for, but, like you, I just get turned off the nature of politics. It should be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out, though.

Nicole...this isn't an attack on you in anyway, but I am so tired of hearing the "lesser of evils" argument. Why settle? Why can we not have a candidate who is absent of evil...who is actually someone 100% worth voting for?

The thing about the beast with two heads (democrats & republicans) is that they are more concerned with money than people, when you really break it down.

Dean talks the talk, but once in any kind of real power, I doubt he can hold up.

What I don't get is that we're now in year three of watching the Democrats putting up no fight whatsoever to Bush following 8 years of a Clinton administration that achieved crap (welfare "reform" to name just one) that Reagan only dreamed about.

I mean really, what's going to happen with the Democrats in office again? Will the tax breaks be phased in over 10 years instead of five years? Will countries get invaded via coalition rather than solo? Will abortion rights erode away quietly rather than being yanked away in one swift kick? Will "pre-emptive attacks" revert back to "humanitarian" missions?

Backing any Dem is a dead end.

I respectfully ask that you all reconsider...please, just take a moment to ponder Howard Dean. He was the only Democratic presidential hopeful to shoot from the hip and come out against Bush's attack on Iraq in a strong, concise, unwashy manner. He has done good work in his own state. He is unafraid to say and do what is right.

I too was a disenfranchised former Democrat...but I read and hear of Howard Dean and become very hopeful for this country and the democratic party. Dean is far from a "dead end"...he is a fresh thinker with a strong voice.

Again, please, just keep an open mind...I don't see a dead end with Dean. Frankly, I see the only chance this country has at salvation through a president.

1: No presidential candidate, especially one that could run as part of a major political party without their head exploding, can bring this country "salvation".

2: It doesn't matter anyway because no way in hell is Howard Dean going to get elected.

Know what though? I may well vote for the guy. I don't buy the lesser of two evils argument, and I'm really wary of the game theory view of voting as trying to bet on a horse you think can win. Unfortunately, voting for Nader last time and then witnessing a Bush administration about 1,000 times worse than I was expecting has made me feel like compromising a bit.

My hope for Dean is that he is going to shift the debate in the upcoming election in a meaningful way. If enough people respond to what he has to say about health care, the war, etc., he could set the tone for the whole race. If nothing else, his presence in the primaries will force other Democrats to commit on his issues. So I'm cautiously hopeful that Dean will have a significant and beneficial effect on the way the presidential race goes. And I would vote for him in a primary, and if he actually made it to the November elections I'd probably vote for him then, too. But I still think Dean, and anyone associated with a major political party, is in that sense a dead end.

We don't need "salvation" from any one person, like dru said. We need to get over the idea that some person (usually a strong white heterosexual bourgeois male) is going to save us from our problems.

Susan-

it couldn't hurt.

Zagg-

my partner lost their job when Locke went into office...all the true liberal Democrats who had worked under the previous Democrat governor were sent packing. Locke is as close to a Republican as any Dem I have seen, especially now since my partner unveiled the truth to me about Locke. Neither of us consider him a true democrat.

Jo,

Sorry to hear about your partner.

But could you also define "true democrat?"

lean to the left. Lean left-er. :)

Howard Dean appears to have two things none of the other current candidates for President have: integrity and a big wave of excitement. Yes, Kucinich, Edwards, Sharpton and Bush all have excitement in their camps to some degree, but none seem to have the combination of "yeah! he's a good guy, not just the lesser of two evils!" and "I am pissed off and this guy is speaking for me!" that Dean has.

Dean may well end up no more effective that Carter, or showing off his compromise skills like Clinton, but he is far better than the alternative of Bush and more Bush, and he's the only one I see as having the potential to generate enough excitement and motivation to throw Bush out.

If you want significant change in the US, it starts at the citizen level, then to the President, then spreads to the rest. What that means is if you want labor reform, reduction of corporate welfare, reasonable and humanitarian foreign policy, environmental protections, improved access to health care, etc., you have to act. The three most important acts you can make are to use your wallet power, communicate and spread your message effectively, and vote for candidates at every level of government whose platforms are as close to your agenda as you can get, bearing in mind in the likelihood of their being able to get elected and be effective at making change.

The elected officials alone cannot make all the changes, but they can certainly make them easier or harder through funding, lawmaking, selective enforcement, and judicial appointments. It is very likely that two of the SCOTUS justices will retire during the next president's term. If the idea of Bush appointing two out of the 9 most influential judges in the country doesn't scare you, you aren't paying attention.

I posted something to randomWalks on this subject a few weeks ago.

As an aside, I have to say that its really interesting to me that people have begun to focus on the election so much already--16 months to go.

I agree that Dean is more than the lesser of evils. He is a Democrat who understands what democracy means. And just as Kerri said her critique is not aimed directly at Nicole, this is not aimed directly at Kerri. As much as I would like to be able to support a 3rd party candidate, we can't afford to do that at this time, and anyone who does is actually giving Bush another vote. We cannot have Bush in office. The best we can do is to elect a Democrat, who might even be a hawk like Lieberman but who has an understanding of ecology and social programs. But at this point, we still have a chance to get Howard Dean, who is not a magic bullet but who would give the Democrats back a chance to call themselves Democrats again. If Nader supporters had voted for Gore last time we wouldn't be in this mess we're in now, losing rights right and left, beating up other countries and being the bully of the world. If Nader had run for Governor or Senator, we would have a Green Party politician in a major role, instead of simply a loser. Perhaps it is jaded to say that, and perhaps politics is crap, but it IS the way this country is run and if you don't vote, or vote for a 3rd party candidate, don't complain about the fascist administration of Bush when he gets elected next time around. HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!

I voted for Nader, the 3rd party candidate last time, and I 100% feel I have the right to complain about the administration. Why? Well in large part because I'm in NY, a state Gore was sure to win, and I really wanted to see the Green Party qualify for federal funding.

Dean is the candidate I am most likely to vote for at this point, but I am also interested in hearing more about Kucinich (sp?). Other than his website does anyone know of a reliable site where I can find out more about this guy and his postitions?

Vic just hit upon my personal pet peave of the democratic systerm. The idea that if you don't vote, or if you vote for someone who TRULY represents you rather than someone who could at least potentially be victorious (pardon the pun) you don't have the "right" to complain.

Well, damnit, I DO have the right. And I have the right to say that our government is not representing the people. And when the majority of people who live here don't vote AT ALL, that says A LOT. A whole fucking lot. Just because the pigs in power don't feel compelled to pay attention to the people who don't vote, does not mean that they don't have any rights.

And I could have peppered that with a bunch of "fucks" and "fuckings" but I didn't want Vic to take it too personally. I'll probably write more about this later, as the whole smarmy "if you don't vote, don't complain" is completely dismissive of the majority of the people in this country who don't have a voice because of our fucked up two party system.

I've written about it before somewhere, if you want to go mining at the other site...ah...here it is.

Some questions about Election 2000.

Despite Nader, didn't Gore still win the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes?

I did not realize that Nader designed the ballots in Florida and that he had for years worked diligently to oppose any modernization of voting facilities throughout the country. After all, it was Nader's life-long ambition to turn the masses of the country off of the electoral process in every way.

I also did not realize that Nader forced Gore to pursue a legal strategy in contesting Florida that pretty much ignored the fact that tens of thousands of black voters were prevented from casting ballots. Gore went after the whole "chad" thing rather than say one word about the systematic disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters.

Furthermore, I did not realize that Nader had cast the deciding vote in the Supreme Court that handed the victory to Bush.

Gore has only himself to blame for losing to Bush.

He ran a completely uninspired campaign that turned off a lot of voters and especially those on the Left.

He did little to discern his positions from Bush.

He came from an administration that was thoroughly right-wing, that continued the attacks that Reagan and Bush the First started.

And when the election was being stolen from him, he chose a strategy that deflated the intense amount of anger that people had over what Bush was doing. There were protests in Florida that the Democratic Party discouraged from continuing so that they could instead pursue a "legal" strategy.

All of this, though, is aside from the main issue.

The Democrats have never been a real Left party in this country. I don't know where that faith comes from, even for a guy like Dean. The Democrats have always simply represented the left-wing of the ruling class. But they are just as beholden to corporate interests and just as much war-mongers as the Republicans. They always have been.

Kucinich is/was the head of the progressive coalition in the house. If I vote, I will vote in the way my vote will make a difference. In the mid terms, i voted WFP (working families party) everywhere I could, and dem when the choice was repug / dem.

subversity: I agree with you wholeheartedly! Especially about thinking about things on a local scale. Though sometimes I spend so much time and energy on trying to "vote with my wallet" that I start to feel like what I buy (or don't buy) is the only measure of my self-worth. (It may sound silly, but anyone who has tried to find decent-looking, durable, and reasonably priced non-leather shoes recently probably knows what I mean.) So I try to keep even that in perspective.

Jo and Nurse R: I don't think, personally, that it can hurt to vote for Howard Dean and I think it's worth noting that just about everyone involved in this discussion seems to be planning to vote for him, or for Kucinich, who is pretty frickin' cool too.

I think there's something I need to spell out that may not be clear. When I said that one special rich white straight (etc. etc.) guy is not going to come save us from ourselves, I could have been a lot more clear. So here goes.

In a nutshell, I believe that the United States government is way too fucked up to be fixed through reform. I have profound doubts about whether any form of government can really work (at least, any form of government that would even vaguely resemble our current ideas of what a government can be). I still vote and I would still welcome serious reforms in our government. If part of working towards reform is voting for a guy like Dean, that's fine. But I don't have any illusions about 1) the likelihood he might win (VERY low) or 2) how good a president he would really be.

I remember when Clinton was first elected in 1992. He talked about a national health care system. He made a big deal about his gay-rights stance. He had a lot of things in common with Dean on the surface, actually. But he didn't make any substantial changes in the areas where he inspired the most hope. And he did do a lot of despicable things that we never even thought to expect, which I could write an entire other inappropriately long post about. Remember when no one even knew what "free trade" meant? If Dean were elected--which I contend is REALLY unlikely--he might do better. But that's not saying very much.

To Vic and anyone else reading this who blames Nader voters for Bush getting elected: I was thinking today about some of the possible implications of the Democratic primary race. What if this situation were to happen: Dean is in the primaries, but the polls show that while he has a significant chunk of voters in his camp, there's no way, shy of a miracle, that he'll win the nomination. The front-runners are a "moderate" Dem and a right-wing one--say, for example, Gephardt and Lieberman. If you vote for Dean, are you wasting your vote? Is it then your fault if Lieberman gets the nomination because Gephardt missed out on votes that went to Dean? I have a feeling that a lot of left Democrats who have picked on Nader voters since the 2000 election stand a good chance, in this next election, of getting a taste of what it was like to be in their shoes.

That having been said, everyone I know who voted for Nader did it either in a state like New York (where Gore was obviously going to win anyway) or like Texas (where Gore was obviously going to lose anyway). But other friends of mine, who lived in more contested areas, voted for Gore against their consciences and in spite of his wishy-washy, only-leftist-compared-to-Mussolini views.

to all the Dean-boosters and other reformists on this thread: I think there's a lot of great, important work to be done by people within the Democratic party and in other progressive groups that don't believe in radical change. I can respect people who have those views and though I don't shy away from a juicy debate, I operate under the assumption that they have their own good reasons for their views and that they're well-informed people. Please do me--and other radicals, Dean skeptics, and even people who are morally opposed to voting--the same courtesy and don't say we're "not paying attention" or imply we must be naive. If you got to know us, you might be surprised how much we've thought and read and talked about this stuff and what path we took to get to this point.

Well, this certainly has generated a lot of response! Gotta give it that. About Nader designing the ballots in Florida. Florida did not decided the election. It should never have gotten that close. It wouldn't have gotten there if Nader had supported Gore and run for a more reasonable office. I also have to admit I voted 3rd party in 1980 for Anderson and feel that I contributed to Reagan getting elected and have always felt guilty since then.

Also, about FL, I actually think the whole thing was set up to make paper ballots, and "chads" get everyone to convert to computers where the Republicans can TRULY manipulate the data, but that's another argument. Well, this certainly has generated a lot of response! Gotta give it that. About Nader designing the ballots in Florida. Florida did not decided the election. It should never have gotten that close. It wouldn't have gotten there if Nader had supported Gore and run for a more reasonable office. I also have to admit I voted 3rd party in 1980 for Anderson and feel that I contributed to Reagan getting elected and have always felt guilty since then.

Also, about FL, I actually think the whole thing was set up to make paper ballots, and "chads" get everyone to convert to computers where the Republicans can TRULY manipulate the data, but that's another argument.

And dru, since I belong to a ruthless women's writer's group, and have been involved in a lot of other things I have learned not to take things personally. And I hope you feel the same because I do truly feel that although I went over the line in saying that 3rd party voting doesn't give you the right to complain (I'm just FRUSTRATED these days), it is those same people of which you speak that complain and complain and never vote that make me truly feel that if you don't vote AT ALL you really don't have any room to complain over who gets elected.

The "if you don't vote then you have no right to complain" argument is wrong.

For instance. Lets say I'm sitting in my house, and I have two routes to get to the store. Lets say that on the right, there is a Christian bully who always wants to beat me up because I'm an atheist. I don't want to go right.

If I go left, I think I'm among friends, the bully smiles, says he's my friend, and then fucks me over by costing me my job, or breaking promises about returning favors. He's always putting on the happy face and then some BS comes along and I get forked.

I'm pretty well pissed off at the jerks on the left because they cant be trusted to keep their word. And the fuckers on the right are just vicious assholes.

Why shouldn't I look for a third route? Going to the right is suicidal. Going to the left is making me feel the fool. False friendships, lies broken promises, and backstabbing.

No, I have a right to complain about both sides. Neither one of them has anything to offer.

Vic,

That's revisionist history.

The only state where adding Nader's votes to Gore's total changes the result is Florida. In no other state can you make a case that Nader tipped the vote Bush's way.

Look here for proof of that.

And again, I think the Republican vote stealing had a much, much greater impact than Nader did in Florida.

So in no state at all can you make the case that Nader tipped the election Bush's way. The entire slagging of Nader for election 2000 has no foundation in fact.

Moreover, I will add that for me personally voting for Gore was never an option. If Nader had not run, I wouldn't have voted at all. I'm sure I was not alone in that camp.

This all raises another question: How much different do you really think things would be today under a Gore presidency?

How much different do you really think things would be today under a Gore presidency?

Let's see... No Ashcroft, no Rummy, no Cheney.

There's a world of difference right there just in those three names, zagg.

Let's see... let's add, no Iraq war, no needing to fight for abortion rights AGAIN, no need to fight against drilling in Alaska AGAIN...

Actually, I came back here to comment on something in the original post that I think got lost in our other debates. The cost of running for President. I do believe there needs to be MAJOR election reform in order to have truly free and fair elections (as well as going back to paper ballots). But I understand drublood's objection to being asked to open her pockets by a supposed liberal candidate. But you also have to understand that that is WHY most left wing liberals do NOT get on the ballot, because it costs so much to run a campaign. However, I do think the candidates, even the left wing ones, should emphasize that physical support is as important as monetary. To get out there and put flyers on people's doors, to DO the door to door campaigning, to sit in the campaign office and stuff envelopes. There are not enough people doing that either and that costs time, which is valuable also. But once more, until we GET a liberal administration there will be no campaign reform, so at the moment we are in a catch-22. At the moment, I intend to open my wallet as wide as it will go for Howard Dean.

And while I'm at it, I'm EXTRAORDINARILY JEALOUS of the number of replies you have to this post. No one replies to my entries anymore, and I don't think I've EVER had this many! And while I'm at it, I'm EXTRAORDINARILY JEALOUS of the number of replies you have to this post. No one replies to my entries anymore, and I don't think I've EVER had this many!

OK. My Republicans=Democrats formulation was deliberately provocative. I admit that.

There clearly are differences. I really like the way subversity formulated it above.

But under a hypothetical Gore presidency I don't imagine that abortion rights would have been any safer nor do I feel like the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq would have been avoided. Under Clinton more women lost access to abortion than under Reagan. And Gore, allegedly pro-choice, has never lifted a finger in his life to defend abortion rights. I don't see why he would have done so as president. How many Dems voted for that partial-birth abortion ban? Right.

Re: War, Gore might have insisted upon multi-lateralism and we wouldn't be operating under the Bush doctrine, but Gore was no dove. He was vice president in an administration that deployed the military more times than Bush I, Reagan and Carter combined. He was part of an administration that carried on the sanctions for 8 years, which killed far more Iraqis than Gulf War II did. He was part of an administration that bombed Iraq for eight years. We'd still have war. It just wouldn't have been so decisive.

Bush is despicable, but so too are the Democrats. It's merely a difference of degree, not kind.

I'm glad so many of you have such an optimistic view of the democratic party. I'm very definitely with Zagg on this one. In fact, I seem to recall on several occasions being called by warhawks to defend the Clinton administration's foreign policy, and feeling relieved that I DON'T SUPPORT DEMOCRATS EITHER.

Is that really so hard to swallow? I mean, is it really THAT difficult to see that someone might agree with NEITHER the democrats, NOR the republicans?

Eventually, someone's going to have to fight for MY vote. So I'm going to keep talking in spite of the muzzle of fear the dems want to place on me. Because all of this talk about "You better vote for the lesser of two evils - or else a REPUBLICAN might end up in office again." sounds a lot like demanding I support a pre-emptive war.

It sounds AN AWFUL FUCKING LOT like "If yr not with us, yr against us." And I don't buy that.

Gee, do you think we're a bunch of opinionated people? I think that's the main reason I love blogging. Even when I disagree with people and vice versa, the level of intellectual though is incredibly higher than anyone I run into on a daily basis. That said, I still disagree. everyone is 'pointing the finger at people to the left of the mainstream political parties and saying, "you better vote Democrat!"' Even I am saying I think you SHOULD vote Democrat for particular reasons. And the reason I am pushing Howard Dean is that I believe he does represent the left.

However, you can't expect the Democrats to represent the left unless the left votes Democratic. We're caught in that Catch-22 again.

And I'm definitely NOT saying if you're not with me you're against me. I don't think anyone who responds to his blog is someone who would be convinced by that argument anyway. Just as I responded on someone else blog about breastfeeding. If you tell someone they are ignorant, you aren't likely to make you're point.

However, I am saying that in my opinion the most logical path back to a sane society from this one that is heading for fascism (see my post fascism) is to work with the Democrats because although I disagree with their military policies, in general they do fight to preserve the environment, individual freedomes and the arts.

I also believe we should start pushing 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., party candidates at the LOWER LEVELS so that we can make some REAL progress on removing the two party system, which I do think is outdated and irrelevant. However, it's what we currently HAVE. If Nader had run for governor or senator, we would HAVE a member of the Green party in a position of power. You can't expect to take the top without making ground at the bottom. That is how it works. I wish it was different, but it is not.

So given a democratic system where gains must be made at lower levels before reaching a higher level, then do it. Start at the bottom. With Nader he could have started, and won, 3/4 the way to the top, but he chose to make a point rather than make real changes. And he made his point.

Now, maybe some of you will get out there, put yourselves on the line and run for lower level non-Dem/Rep party offices. Maybe someday, I'll be able to call one of you President!

But unless things change NOW, the chance to do that will go away. And in my opinion, and nothing but my opinion the way to do that now is to get a Democrat in the White House before we do end up in a fascist state

Vic,

It's really quite ironic that you call for a vote for the admittedly non-Left Democrats as a way to avoid fascism.

That's precisely one of the mistakes the Left made in Germany. They supported Hindenberg to avoid Hitler and then got Hitler anyway. (source)

Also I just firmly believe that even if you give the Democratic Party a Left head in Dean, it's just not tenable. He won't be immune from any of the external pressures and we'll all just end up disillusioned. Again.

And if you think there is such an urgency in fighting the rise of fascism in the U.S., why put all of your hopes in one date 18 months from now? We should be fighting today, and not just against Bush, but against a whole system that puts the priorities of a tiny elite ahead of the vast majority of society.

The only way fascism can grow is when the Left is not posing a viable alternative. If all the Left can do is point to the bankrupt Democrats, then that will only hasten the onset of fascism, not ward it off.

The real fear I have is that any growing movement against Bush and war will be sublimated into the Democrats if they make the slightest indications of a leftward shift. It's happened before. That's why the Dems are called the "graveyard of social movements."

But the truth is the Left can never take back the Democratic Party. It was never ours to begin with and it's a part of a system that prioritizes the rich at the expense of everyone else.

zagg, would you be supporting Dean if he was running as an independent rather than a Democrat? Same platform, same rhetoric, different party.

I understand your position, but at the same time I don't think your way is practical -- politics is about compromise, it always has been and always will be. Even if an independent candidate managed to get elected to the White House right now, unless he had an incredible percentage of the vote (like maybe 80%?) he would still be subject to the same sorts of pressures as a Democratic president would, only he'd be in a weaker position without a large political machine to back him up. The military, unions, big business, not to mention Senate and Congress, could very easily hold an independent candidate's agenda hostage and effectively strip him of any real power to change things.

The system exists, it's not going to go away or change overnight. It's more effective to (do at least some of your) work within it to change it for the better than to stand outside bleating, hoping that the majority will wake up one day and realize they'd better join you for their own good, because that's just not going to happen. Some (most?) people really just prefer to have their heads in the sand, to be told what to do so they can absolve themselves from any responsibility when things go apeshit as they almost always do.

Maybe if Dean gets the nomination and all the publicity that entails, Democrats will wake up and realize they don't have to pander shamelessly in order to get votes, that they don't have to be Republican Lite, that they can say "no, this is bullshit" and that dissent is patriotic. Maybe all the people that haven't been voting because the two parties are almost indistinguishable will find they have a reason to go to the polls.

lia,

If Dean were Independent I would be more likely to support him. That's true.

I also agree that an Independent elected would face the exact same pressures a Left-leaning Democrat would, if not more so.

But to me that leads to the conclusion that working inside the system is a dead end.

Basically what a lot of people in this discussion seem to be laying out is that we have to get Dean elected (because he is part of the true Left). But not only that, we have to get other lefts elected and we have to raise as much money as the Right and emulate everything they do, only with a better agenda.

But we just can't compete on that playing field.

There's a reason the Right has more money. That's the same reason the Democrats eternally are being pulled to the right. The system itself is built around the interests of the rich. And if you accept that class is at the basis of our society, than how can we ever work within that structure to make things different? The system itself is built to prevent that from occurring.

The importance of the Nader campaign was not so much that things would be different if he had been elected. The importance was that it energized thousands of people who previously had felt left out. But the Nader campaign was not an end unto itself. It was part of a larger movement within this country against corporate greed and globalization and that now is also against war.

The movement is the key thing.

There have been times in this country where revolution was not a far-fetched idea (1930s, 1960s). I think we're on that road again. There's a lot of anger seething under the surface in this country. It's going to explode at some point.

The big fear I have is not the Democrats themselves, but that the Dean bandwagon will sweep along with it a movement that is yearning for changes much larger than Dean could deliver, no matter what his intentions. And that ultimately will lead to a greater defeat.

To me it would be disastrous say, if Dean were elected and the present course around many issues is not changed. If he does not work to repeal the tax cuts or do anything about abortion, people who had been energized and mobilized into his campaign will become demoralized. That could lead to a renewed set of attacks on us, rather than a quelling of them.

That's why I think we always have to be talking about getting people on the streets.

I think I've been too contentious at times within this discussion. I don't want to come off as being too contrarian. Most of us here are coming from the same starting point of wanting change. That's an undeniably good thing. It's a signal that a good number of people in this country are not just sitting back and taking the attacks any longer. But I think within the Left we have to have these debates in a comradely way. And the question of reform vs. revolution is a huge one.

Vic: You wrote: "However, you can't expect the Democrats to represent the left unless the left votes Democratic. We're caught in that Catch-22 again."

It's really not a catch-22 at all--no offense, but you've got it backwards. The truth is that you can't expect the Democrats to represent the left if leftists keep voting for them no matter what they do. Which is what has gotten us in this mess in the first place.

According to that logic, you could say the same thing about Republicans. The argument would proceed thus:

vic: leftists should support the Republican party.

me: but Republicans don't support the left.

vic: well, what do you expect? the left isn't voting for them!

You could get even sillier, and say libertarians should vote Communist or that gay rights advocates should vote for the Natural Law party (I think that's what they call that party that's made up of people who do Transcendental Meditation). Can't blame 'em for not representing your views if you didn't vote for 'em. With all due respect, that's a bunch of hooey!

Of course the bottom line is this argument makes sense to you because you're operating under the assumption that the Democratic party is the party of the American left. From my perspective--which is that being to the left of Bush does not make you a leftist and REALLY doesn't earn you my vote--this isn't justified.

If the Democrats (Dean, or others) start representing my views, they'll get my vote. Same for the Republicans, those meditation people, the Libertarians, the ISO, Jerry Springer, ALF, that ficus tree that ran a few years back--anybody.

lia: You say "I understand your position" but you're not being very understanding. Describing people who aren't satisfied with the Democratic party as "bleating" and "putting their heads in the sand" is, I think, really unnecessarily insulting. I'm neither a sheep nor an ostrich, I'm looking around me with my eyes open and calling it like I see it in a rational manner. Obviously there is going to be some tension under the surface of any discussion like this, but there's no need to make insulting comparisons likening people who disagree with you to animals.

Describing people who aren't satisfied with the Democratic party as "bleating" and "putting their heads in the sand" is, I think, really unnecessarily insulting.

Wow, are we not allowed to use metaphors now? I'm sorry, I didn't get the message (dru, why didn't you send me the message?).

Feel free to substitute "standing outside in the rain yelling and holding up placards while everyone inside thinks you're a crazy troublemaker and ignores you" for "bleating", that's about what I meant but "bleating" was just so more concise.

And as for ostriches, I wasn't referring to people who aren't satisfied with the Democratic party; I thought that was obvious (since I used the word "majority" in the previous sentence) but I guess not. To be clear: I was talking about the sort of people who believe everything the president tells them because he's the president so he must be telling the truth! It's on FOX News, so it must be true cause reporters never lie! Like I said later on in the same sentence, the people who prefer "to be told what to do so they can absolve themselves from any responsibility when things go apeshit as they almost always do."

(I guess I should be glad I compared them to ostriches instead of calling them "sheeple".)

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I really REALLY don't want to get in the middle of this one. Susan and Lia - you are both awesome. This is all.

Lia - I thought the word "bleating" was a bit of a low blow, but far be it from me to condemn anyone for their use of strong words. hahahaha.

Susan - Closer examination does reveal that Lia wasn't referring to democrats in her ostrich metaphor...

But I'm curiuos what Lia and Vic have to say w/r/t the actual points that have been raised by Zagg and Susan here. I'm particularly intrigued by the point Susan made about voting for a party so that it will change to suit you, and Zagg's fears that the radical momentum that is building will be co-opted by the Dean platform...and watered down significantly to serve as cocktails at some hoity-toity rich person's ball.

OK, so I'm not as eloquent as either of them, but both of those very valid points have been ignored by our counter-pointers. And I would really like to see the counterpoints to them.

I am a Green.

I couldn't possibly support our bolting the Greens to support yet

another Trojan Horse for the Democrats any more than I could support

the Rensenbrink-Sevigny plan. For those who would accuse us of being

"spoilers" or suggest that we should devote more time to building

another party than to the one party that matters, I say this:

I could never, never, never support a Green endorsement of any

candidate running for president under the Democratic Party banner. Let

Democratic progressives abandon the party that has consistently

betrayed them and wage their campaigns from within the Green Party.

Those interests presently controlling the Democratic Party's direction

and destiny shall never permit a progressive candidacy to survive.

Being realistic means understanding that the "front-loaded" Democratic

primary season is intended directly to prevent any candidacy such as

that of Kucinich from ever becoming a threat to the controlling

interests.

Kucinich has neither the funding nor the grass-roots organizational

framework that will allow him to become even a credible "dark horse"

within the Democratic Party presidential race. He will fail, and the

candidacies of Mosely-Braun and Sharpton shall fail as well. They

shall fail because they were fated to fail from the start. This thing

is fixed. Not one of these three candidates can possibly counter the

full weight of those established Democratic Party machines in each and

every state that shall be brought to bear, poised against them. The

Democratic Party's own internal structure, together with the very

design of the primary process, has already disqualified their

candidacies.

So, yes, let us therefore please BE realistic. The Democratic Party

will advance as its party's own candidate he who can best promote the

realpolitik interests of its financial backers. The party's nominee

shall persist in that party's right-ward trend. Forget attempts at

influencing that party's direction. Progressives have tried and failed

at that for more than thirty years.

That is why we created the Greens. The single most important and vital

thing for Greens to continue doing is building the party, because it

is THIS party- not any single other party- that is humanity's final

and last chance to stop the creeping fascism that the Democratic Party

has quite knowingly become complicit in implementing. The Democratic

Party has had its chance to prove its worth. The Democratic Party had

the numbers in the Senate to prevent Bush from ever securing the White

House, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the

Senate to prevent Bush from ever having John Ashcroft as his Attorney

General, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the

Senate to prevent Bush from ever having Gale Norton on his Cabinet,

and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to

prevent the Patriot Act from being passed, and they failed. The

Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent Bush from

eviscerating environmental regulations, and they failed. The

Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent a tax

give-away to the rich, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the

numbers in the Senate to prevent a neo-colonial war with Iraq, and

they failed.

They failed because they wanted to fail. They failed because they were

paid to fail. They failed because their puppeteers told them to fail.

If Greens support the Democrats in 2004, then the Greens will fail. We

will fail because we will thereby lend our support and endorsement to

the failure to challenge neo-conservative policy. We will fail because

we shall thusly be lending our tacit support to fascism with a softer

face. We will fail to be relevant. We will fail to be meaningful. We

will fail to be the party that I joined. We will fail to become a

party that is at all worth supporting.

The Democratic Party has had opportunities after golden opportunities

to demonstrate that a Green challenge would be both counterproductive

and superfluous, and they have failed. They have failed and betrayed

their progressive base for more than thirty years, and have amply

demonstrated a strong desire to fail again. This did not have to be

the case. It wasn't necessary for this to be the case. The Democratic

Party could easily have deactivated the threat of a Green Party

challenge. They merely had to pretend to be human. They didn't do

that. They failed.

I have been a great fan of the Lesbian Feminist thealogian, Dr. Sonia

Johnson, now for many years- and it was with an eco-feminist ecosophy

such as hers in mind that I became involved in the Green movement in

the first place. I rather like what this pyromantic author had to say

re: this-

"Some people were shocked that I didn't vote in the 1988 election. I

was shocked that they did. The day after, I overheard a conversation

on a plane in which one man was lamenting to the other: `It seems to

me that we never have a decent candidate any more, that we have to

vote for the lesser of two evils every time. I can't understand it."

If he had realized that by voting for the lesser of two evils, he

helped create a world in which he would always have to vote for the

lesser of two evils; if he had understood that by voting for evil at

all, even if for a lesser evil, he was still voting for evil, and that

since everyone who voted, voted for evil- either a lesser or greater

one- surely there was no possible way to get anything but evil; if he

had understood that what he was doing every moment of his life was

determining future moments, he would have been shocked to see his

collusion in the deteriorating political situation that he deplored.

We cannot compromise our integrity and have a reality with integrity

anymore than we can have peace by waging war."

Voting evil encourages evil, and generates evil for years to come.

Evil begets evil. As the first ecosophists of both the social and deep

ecology movements had been inspired by the satyagrahi, so then am I.

There can be no greater force on Earth than soul-force or conscience.

I vote accordingly.

We're not the spoilers, and no one understanding the role of the

Democrats in implementing Bush policies and proposals can seriously

suggest that we have ever been spoilers. Indeed, no one is accusing us

of being spoilers beyond those who want our party to disappear from

the national stage, period, in any case. Let's not humor them.

I randomly happened upon here. I agree with assessments of Gov. Dean. The real trouble with him as a candidate (don't get me wrong he's the closest thing to Green Party and/or Independent Party we'll ever see in our lifetimes) he has that big skeleton in his closet. I don't know why no one has hinted at it yet, but I tell you the media is just sitting, waiting all excited .. smirking as they think how great it will be to let Dean get ahead and at the last minute pull out the old skeleton. See, Dean is the reason why VT got the civil unions passed. And I can't see any media not running that all up and down flag poles. Hell, half of VT was pissed at him. And that's VT. Wait until the thinly veiled threat of "he'll copy Canada and make gay marriage legal in the US" by republicans hits places like OH & Michigan. Game Over Dr. Dean.