<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> Carrol asked: Steve, it is clear enough that it is hopeless to vote for the Green candidate in Minnesota -- but I do not see for the life of me how that translates into a reason for voting for Wellstone. Liza writes, "Progressives may be disappointed with Wellstone's recent enthusiasm for military spending." Disappointed! What issue in u.s. political life today is of greater importance than resisting the military program of the Carter - Reagan - Bush - Clinton - Bush administration? Remember the inaugural acts of that administration: (a) The deregulation of airlines and (b) the invasion of Afghanistan by the CIA. And Wellstone's support of that program is to be regarded as a minor detail!!!!!! Of what earthly use to _anyone_ is a Senator who does not give priority to attacking that program?   --I think, to be honest I'm not at all in disagreement with what you say, but Liza's article seemed to be a reaction to her interview with McGaa, which was what moved me to an 'anyone but McGaa' position.  Let me answer that last question. A _Democratic_ Senator (with a 'liberal' reputation) who does not oppose that program is of immense use -- to the U.S. ruling class. You know, Steve, that progressive action in the United States depends on the growth of mass movements _outside the  electoral arena_ -- and that in fact, any good things that happen _inside_ the electoral arena occur also as the result of such mass movements. (And even then, the "good" things are usually a bit suspect: e.g., the Wagner Act was not so much a victory for the CIO as a way of putting a ceiling on the victory it was winning on its own.) And you should also know that the primary function of the Democratic Party in the u.s. political scene is to bar the development of such mass movements. Every vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for the continuation of U.S. imperial crime. --Then my only option would be  to not vote at all, but I'm simply unimpressed with McGaa and the Greens for letting McGaa become their senatorial candidate.  You don't put up a McGaa as an alternative to Wellstone, it speaks volumes for how unseriously the Party takes itself, and we on the left should be honest in our assessment of the choice they made for their candidate.  There's no point to the Green's challenging a formidable candidate like Wellstone if they put out a candidate who is so poorly informed on the issues, which McGaa transparently is.  In some way I feel, as absurd as it might sound, by voting for Wellstone, I'm sending the same message to the Greens that they hope to send to the dems, namely 'your candidate is woefully inadequate'.     Steve</DIV></BODY></HTML>