> At best, Moore goofed big time on Clark. Hell, all you need to know
> about Clark is the title of his new book: _Winning Modern Wars_. He's
> trying to peddle himself as a more competent proconsul who'll clean up
> the new colony. If that weren't literally a psychotic proposition,
> you'd have to say he's trying to beat Bush from Bush's right...
>
> Meanwhile, the bigger question is: Do we buy Moore's/the Democrats'
> anybody-but-Bush line? Personally, as a member of the Pacific Green
> Party here in Oregon, I'm heavily inclined to disagree and continue to
> vote Green. Can anybody here change my mind on this? Do you really
> think Howard Dean -- he of the Dean-Witter empire -- will change
> anything? I don't.
Well, in 2000, I voted for Nader, under the proposition that Gore wasn't a noticeable improvement over Bush, and he'd be continuing many of Clinton's policies. And until September 10th, 2001, I hadn't had any reason to revise that opinion. And I still stand by that vote.
But ever since then, Bush has turned into a _severe_ problem, and it's difficult to see the Democrats fielding a President who's had this combination of stupidity, venality, and evil. (Okay, maybe Lieberman...) So _this_ time, I'll go along with the "anybody-but-Bush" line. But I won't assume it'll fix much.