When the Democrat's version of 'Survivor' is over and Kerry is the last one left standing, yes, I will certainly vote for him in November. But we have
got to have a better strategy than simply holding our noses and voting and calling it good, or this scenario will play itself out over and over and over...
I am one of those folks who voted for Nader in 2000. I did so because (a) Oregon was looking like a "safe" state (though it didn't turn out to be quite as safe as I thought!) and (b) for once, just once, I wanted to vote with hope rather than with fear as a motivator.
Not this time, baby. I'm votin' fear all the way. Fear of a lame duck Bush administration and all that it entails means that if the Dem nominee is a dead cat that the frozen feline will get my vote over Bush.
But it's looking more and more like ONCE AGAIN the Dems will have nominated the Safe Establishment Candidate. WAY too much about this candidate reminds me of the Gore candidacy:
- Is on record with some progessive stances, but also has a reputation of playing it safe too often.
- Has some questions swirling about him re: fundraising.
- Personality-wise, doesn't exactly come off as inspiring, or even particularly the nice-guy, fun-to-be-around sort.
So, Kerry's candidacy worries me, and I am certain that he will need all of the help he can get to win.
BUT--if that's where it stops, then we can expect this to keep happening every election cycle. We can expect that the beholden-to-big-donors, play-it-safe politicos will always be the Dem nominee. Blech. No room for real change. What is our strategy to change this pattern? Do we start at the top and try to take over the DNC? Do we start at the bottom and infiltrate the local Dem apparatus with activist Deaniac types? Do we support the forming our own advocacy org, a la what Trippi seems to be starting up?
What is the best strategy, kossacks? 'Cause I can't put up with the status quo much longer.