I think we have a big choice here. I mean, it's a key choice, and it's predictably dividing us.
On the one hand, we can say yes now to something that is imperfect, and less progressive than we like and deserve. It'd be a huge punch in the gut.
The risk is that people might feel it is good enough, and there wouldn't be demand for a better choice in the future. It could depress morale.
On the other hand, we can say no. NO.
If we say No, then it will show that we are taking a stand. A stand. Because the current option we are given - they only option they're giving us! - is just not good enough. It's the same old crap we've seen all along.
They're making us choose between two evils that as far as we are concerned, are pretty much the same thing. If we say no, we might get the one that other Democrats/Progressives say would be the "failure", but we're in this for the long haul, aren't we?
We need to start over and do it right, from the ground up. Do it RIGHT. If we say No, we'll have more energy to do it right. We'll be able to keep trying and keep working, and then we'll win.
I've been thinking about both sides - whether to take the half a loaf now (really just crumbs - it's pretty much the same thing), or whether to say NO, at long last. To withdraw our support, to stop being taken for GRANTED, and to work towards what we really should be working for.
So who's with me?
Good. Good. It's settled.
We will vote for Nader and let Bush defeat Gore. This is clearly the correct tactic.