> If fewer US leftists were fearful of getting flaks from the Democrats,
> they could have made the most of the widening gulf between the rank and
> file and leaders of the Democratic Party this year, building the Green
> Party -- led by the Nader/Camejo campaign -- as the anti-war alternative
> to the Democratic Party, which still would not have won Nader/Camejo the
> key to the White House, of course, but which would have been a good way
> of building a strong foundation for the campaign against the occupations
> after the election day as well as for preparing for an even stronger
> challenge in electoral politics in 2008, when John Kerry will be running
> again after four years of wars, occupations, and fiscal austerity under
> his administration.
I think Yoshie makes an excellent point here, even though I disagree with her goals. The progressive left in the USA had the opportunity after the defeat of Gore in 2000 to make a broader argument about the many failings of the Democratic Party, which just can't be reformed. Instead the left turned towards this campaign of identifying everything evil with the Bush regime, which does have some merit, but completely ignores the fact that a change in leaders won't change much.
We could have buried the Democratic Party over the past four years and then proceeded to bury the Republican Party (which is imploding by the hour). If the progressive left wants to have any relevancy and build *any* kind of alternative, it has to rise above the Anybody But Bush bandwagon, either the 1992 or 2004 editions.
Chuck0