Neither party is in a position to educate the voter, any party who tried would be slapped down as condescending. We need somebody to stand up and say "if every one of you bought a car that got 10 miles per gallon extra, we would be much closer to energy independence. We would have less pollution, which would decrease the cost of Medicare.". Nobody will do that.
We are again forced to fight for the Democrats to make sure we don't have a 3rd term of GOP. But both parties are up to their necks in special interests. Do you really believe going to a meeting will have any effect on this? No they will still pretend to listen while still pandering and porking. It's the system that's at fault not policies; we cannot blame this mess on the media alone. We have to attempt to change the perception of people around us because nobody in either party has the balls to do it.
One thing I have learnt watching this entire mess, is that it's almost helpless. We are fighting to get the Dems back in, but that would really be the smallest of victories. A tiny step towards a solution or sorts.
What would happen if they did get back in? More of the same. We are seriously talking about appealing to the religious right, to win their votes. Winning back middle America, playing and pandering to middle ground, more of the same solutions. At least Bush has some radical (all be it dangerous) policies, the Dems are going through motions. They are like a corporation; let's not doing anything dangerous! Let's not alienate anybody, we must not offend because that's how we will get back in power.
I really am thinking that now is the time to fight for a third party. Bush is not up for reelection. We have to assume he will not come out of his second term smelling of roses. We have to assume that the Dems will continue not offending and unless the primaries select somebody VERY polarizing, that they will get back in power. And we will be back to square one. I think it's now time for progressives to channel their energy in to the third party option. Even if a third party can only just get over 10% of the vote, they will get more financing and have a greater voice for change. Maybe they will have the balls to open public discussion in to the real issues. I am sure that for the next for years the Democrats will not dare do a single thing to upset their chances in 2008. Which means no discussion about oil usage, about waste, about Israel and Palestine, about peek oil, about the hydrogen economy.
2 parties makes the political system like a sports game. In it's self it is polarizing. It ties up the senate, it has deep implications. Its debatable weather Hillary would win. I believe she is FAR too polarizing a figure to ever win. So, are we as progressives better served by mobilizing for one of the other parties? Green's or even Nader?
I know many Americans who fear words like "coalition government". What I can tell you when the Conservative party in the UK, run by Margaret Thatcher, caused boom and bust in the 80's, people looked for a third option. Very soon we had a third party, that was not viable, but had an effect on party line voting. It brought the political spectrum very, very rapidly back to center (which Tony Blair is given the credit for). Most of America want center politics, even if they don't understand what that is. The way to achieve that is not having a centrist Democrat, in my opinion. It is to have a third party with enough votes to swing tight partisan votes, and swing them in a way that is best for the country, not for the party.