> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>> The spirit of Vince Lombardi lives on LBO-talk: "Winning isn't
>> everything. It's the only thing."
>
> When we all know the mark of a True Leftist is losing!
>
> What are you talking about here? Winning what?
Probably that question is better directed at me, since I'm the one who pointed out that Kucinich, Nader, and the Greens were primarily united in their loserdom.
In the case of electoral politics, usually "winning" is defined as "getting into office". There are other ways of winning--when Harvey Milk just barely lost his first race for supervisor, it was effectively a victory of sorts, given where he started, what he proved (particularly when he showed off the voting map), and how he used that vote total to move forward.
In 2000, a five-percent vote total for the Greens would have been winning. In 2004, in Kucinich's case, it would've been having some impact on the eventual Democratic nominee. For Nader--well, I don't know what would constitute victory for Nader.
Like I said, losers. Having long been one myself, I hate losers, and would be pleased as punch to go have a revolution with Vince Lombardi on my side--a hell of a lot better a deal getting stuck with Alan Alda.
Isn't this the whole reason there's been a resurgence of interest in Lenin? That he succeeded in gaining power? That he was a winner, regardless of whether his theories made any sense?
All the best,
John A