>[comment: It's pretty misleading and seems intentionally ambiguous when
>Cockburn uses the terms 'radical' and 'progressive' to characterize the
>potential of the Democratic Party. The DP is, objectively, a political
>vehical for capitalist interests, that is, the top 5-6% economically. Whether
>it puts on a "radical" veneer or conservative one to carry out these
>objectives is besides the point. --david]
Of course the Dems are never going to challenge capitalism or imperialism - they're an integral part of it. But it's braindead or dishonest not to acknowledge the difference between the two parties. We would probably not be on the verge of war with Iraq right now with a Dem president, nor would there have been a trillion dollar tax cut for the country club set. Under the Dems, you'd get slightly better enviro regulation, less cretinous judges, and a friendlier environment for union organizing. And it's much easier to do radical politics when the Dems are in power - you can point to how little has changed under them and say it's the system, not the gang in charge.
As I've said before, I think Slavoj Zizek is right that the time to make the no-difference argument is when the more liberal party is in power. Not now, with some truly frightening ghouls running the show.
Doug