Yes, Jesus is love. Or used to be.
The debates about how reactionary Kerry is are utterly beside the point, unless you think he is no more liberal than G. Bush. If not, the question is what you get by running against Kerry.
Will a left candidacy pressure Kerry to say things that are slightly more left than otherwise? Maybe, but so what. Clinton did, and what was the result when he was in office? At the point somebody is elected, the advocate becomes the client. Clinton doesn't need you any longer; you need him.
Does a left candidacy raise consciousness? Probably to a marginal degree, but if this not organized into something more lasting, what good is it?
Can Nader organize something more lasting? If he can, what has he been waiting for? He can't or he won't.
Should we look forward to a Bush victory, where things get worse and rouse the oppressed masses to revolutionary fervor? I think not. I hope not.
Any recriminations towards Nader -- avidly hyped by Nader himself in a full burst of victimhood -- are completely beside the point. WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF A NADER CANDIDACY IN 2004? I see none.
If I pretend to be an anarchist/LBOster for a second, I don't want a Nader candidacy to lure people into wasteful parliamentary activity. After all, Nader is into all sorts of contortions to gain the votes of Democrats and Republicans. The serious anarchist wants people to abandon that mindset and think anew. So you elevate and organize according to a full-bore critique of all that is, and in a spare moment you vote for John Kerry.
Makes sense to me.
mbs