>so now then, *tell me why i shouldn't be.*
Hey, I'm voting for Nader, remember?
One thing that persuades me that it might make a diff is based on Garry Wills's analysis, in Nixon Agonistes, of why the 60s happened. Thoughout the 50s, liberals said, it's Eisenhower, if we only got one of our guys in there, everything would be better. They got JFK, and everything wasn't better. So lots of people decided that the system was fucked. I think one reason we've seen an upsurge in radical politics in the last couple of years is precisely that people see that with Clinton in office, it's the system, and not Reaganbush that's doing all those bad things. If W wins, we'll start hearing once again that if only we elect in Dem in 2004 things will be so much better.
Analogously, Adolph Reed told me once that Clinton's the best recruiting tool the Labor Party has.