Look, I actually don't have a lot at stake in being consided "radical" or not, since in some groups I've belonged, I've been the insane leftwinger and in others the conservative pragmatist.
As far as the policy I want, I want to abolish the capitalist class, have workers and communities collectively run the businesses that effect their lives, restribute both wealth and racial privilege nationally and globally, and assure gender equality.
How to get to such policies is the issue. If radicalism means always taking the most left position in any debate on tactics, I am definately not a radical. If choosing less radical tactics is more likely to achieve those goals in the long term, then I choose less radical tactics.
As for what "I" am willing to surrender, it seems odd to talk about Gore in that context. When a worker tries to organize a union and risks being fired, that is a radical sacrifice. When people challenge racism and risk losing friends, that is a radical sacrifice. I hardly think I have made the most radical sacrifices in my life compared to many others - a chunk of possible income that I had no particular desire for, a lot of activist time that I often enjoyed, a few potential friends that I challenged a little too hard -- but I have generally done what I believed often worked towards those radical goals to the best of my ability. Which is all people can ever ask of one another.
But who you vote for is hardly a personal sacrifice one way or another. It is a tactical choice, nothing more, nothing less. So you are right that voting against Gore is nothing particularly radical; it's just a tactical choice I disagree with.
But that's fine. Tactics you vigorously debate, then move on to the next campaign, hopefully with a bit more wisdom on what to do next.
-- Nathan Newman