OK, it's true, any Democratic cabdidadte is going to be pro-capitalist, pro-buisness, at leasr moderately conservative, at least mildly imperialist, fairly hostilr to labor, soft on women's rights, weak on lay and lebian liberation, "rough" on criume, and complicit in various racist policies. WE cab take that as read. Voting for a Dem will not strenghthen the lift, split the Democratic party, or advance the revolution. So why do it?
Because Bush Ii is far far far worse than anyone expected. I had thought he woukd be like his dad, not great, but not that much worse than Clinton in many ways, and even capable of doing some good things like the 1991 Civil Rights Act and the ADA. I was wrong. Bush II is an arrogrant, self-absorbed radical twit who surrounded humself with fanatics and ideologues who are running the country and the world into the ground at a far faster rate thana ny predecessor I can remember. He makes Reagan look good, never ming dis dad. He makes Nixon look great.
So, we can say, Dean or Kerry or Edwards or Clark are procapitalist scumbags, which is true and, and to hell
with them. We can say that the handful of votes we command don't make a difference, which in ordinary circumstances is true. But I think we have really got to the point where there is a significantly lesser evil, where restoring something like a sort of Clintonian regime of the sorts that any of the serious Dems might attempt to do, or even doing not much of anything, would be vastly better than the downward spiral we are in.
It would be different if we had a really well organized radical countersystemic movement, or a viable labor party, or even if Bush II were just ordinarily bad instead of spectacularly awful. ANd I'm not saying that we should support Dems all the time because they are generally lesser evils, But this times seems different to me.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus