The argument for campaigning for Kerry has nothing to do with the differences between the DP & the RP. The argument has to be a variation of that expressed in the Declaration of Independence: The threat that Bush if reelected will create an irreversible trend to tyranny. If that is not the case, it makes no difference whatever how much "better" (or "less evil") Kerry & the DP may be. Our task lies elsewhere.
In my judgment Bush does not represent such a threat, and analogies to Germany 1932 do not hold. The U.S. is obviously moving towards a far more authoritarian society, but that movement has little or nothing to do with who is in the White House.
What is crucial in respect to this campaign is that our debates not threaten our ability to work together in the anti-intervention movement after November. That means no challenging of motives of those who take one side or the other in this debate. I'm not an admirer of Nader personally, but the personal attacks on him being made by ABBs are an outrage, and a real threat to the future unity of the left when it will be needed most.
Carrol
P.S. I said "campaigning" not "voting." Progressives as I use the word are not passive in their politics. They put the hours of the day where their politics lie. I don't give a hoot one way or the other how an isolated individual votes or doesn't vote.
P.S. 2 The traditional virtue (post-w.w. 2) of the RP has been its cowardice in foreign affairs when it is in office. Very nearly archetypal was Reagan's turning tail and fleeing Lebanon after the death of 200 marines there. On this basis, Bush _may_ be the lesser evil in this election.