Don't repeat "Nader-mistake" by opposing Hillary

I helped crash the election in 2000 by voting against Gore because I didn't think we could afford a continuation of the Clinton-DLC agenda. To those threatening to opt out or vote McCain if Hillary pulls off a victory, I ask: What did you learn from 2000?

In fact, I voted for Nader two times, and didn't vote for a Democratic president until my fourth chance to vote in a presidential election.  I voted third party in 1992, then Nader in 1996, Nader again in 2000 and, with my nose plugged, for Kerry in 2004.  Voting for Kerry was not something I did lightly, because I had always considered it a matter of principle to vote third party.  

At the start of this election I supported Hillary, which I did for the same reasons that I voted for Kerry the last round.  I was willing to accept Hillary as a candidate because the election of Bush had proven the need for a united front by Democrats.  Early in the race, I was willing to put aside my strong opposition to the war and my doubts about Hillary's leadership on universal health care in order to make sure that a Republican would not remain in the White House.

After Kennedy's speech, I realized that Obama is the first Democrat I am excited to support, and not only as a protest candidate to make a point.  While not all his positions are progressive enough, I think he will advance liberal values more than any recent Democratic candidate has (or third party candidate could). And once elected, I believe that Obama has what it takes to keep advancing those values - something that Clinton never even wanted to do.

Talk of progressive Obama supporters to opt out of the general, or (worse) to vote for McCain is as wrong as was the following letter to the editor I wrote in 2000:

CRASHING THE PARTY

DEAR EDITOR: After reading the Stranger article about Al Gore and health care ["Gory Details," Nathan Thornburgh, Sept 7], I couldn't help but be bothered by all the liberals who are mindlessly planning on voting for Gore when there is another option: Ralph Nader. I am voting for Nader because he is not Gore. Many of my liberal friends keep warning me that this is the same as voting for Bush. I think they are wrong.

Under the current political arrangement, the "minority of the center" rules. The center's "swing voters" will vote either Democrat or Republican, while "core voters" generally will vote against the candidate furthest from his or her ideal. This means that core voters can be counted on to vote for their respective parties while swing voters must be sought. For the far-left to be considered as important as the center's swing voters, we need to stop auto-pilot voting. The truth is that the Democratic Party can't win without its core voters. If we leave the party, the party will be forced to move back to the left. Voting for Nader is about demonstrating that there is a limit to how far center (or right) we'll go.

We can afford four years of Bush to avoid 16 years of Clinton-Gore.

Tom Kertes, Seattle

Just like I was mistaken to write in 2000 that "we can afford four years of Bush to avoid 16 years of Clinton-Gore," it is a mistake for Democrats and other progressives to suggest that McCain would be better than Hillary.  No matter how far Hillary is from truly progressive values, she's far better than a third go around for Bush's terrible agenda.