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.

Obama's right. McCain is better than Bush.  (How couldn't he be?)  And Hillary is wrong for attacking Obama on this.  It's sillier than when she went after Obama for saying that Reagan was an effective communicator.  Rule number something-or-another: Be believable to be believed.

I am sick of this crap. Sick of this approach to politics, from Huffington Post:

Sen. Hillary Clinton fired back at her opponent over the comment [that McCain was better than Bush], while tying it in to her general critique that Obama cannot fight hard enough to win the election.

Politics is not really about being "tough" but it's instead about "smart strategy".  Case in point, John Kerry got swift boated not because he was weak, but because his messaging strategy played right into the caricature that made him into an effete flip flopper.  Had Kerry gone to his prosecutor days and played himself as a defender against government abuses, rather than going to Vietnam, then Teflon might have prevailed.

These are our opponents: Multi-billion dollar corporations that own broadcast and cable media, right-leaning politicians who advance wars out of shared interests with out-of-control military industrialists, insurance companies feeding off of a corrupt and heartless health care system.  The people behind these institutions are our opponents.  It should not surprise us when they act in their interests and in accordance with their values.  When they (in action) oppose unions, attack progressives, spread fear to incite war and advance right wing political agendas, they are doing what they ought to - advance their own interests, work the political system to their gain, crush their opponents, carry out their vision.  And when they (in words) claim to otherwise, they are simply being smart and effective at carrying out their agenda.

Democracy, universal health care, public education, strong labor unions, these are not "goods" in the minds of all.  There are people, for reasons of interest and belief who oppose democracy, support health care for the rich and the rich alone, fear an educated population and seek to exploit workers.  And when they act in accordance with this vision, we should not be shocked or surprised.  

Part of why I moved to Canada a year ago was because I was fed up and concerned about the conduct of democratic institutions like what I witnessed tonight by ABC News.

Soon after the move, I was asked to speak on Fox Radio on why I decided to leave.  My answer: Because I love America and the values that are America should be what protect people like me from being excluded and denied my civil rights.  The weakening of the American democracy had reached a point where its promise was no longer standing up for what was right. It had become too painful to be a direct target in the divide and distract politics of my nation, the same politics used to threaten the core ideals of American and that were making me a political football for being gay.  

Watching tonight's debate from my new home in Toronto was another painful reminder of these dangerous assaults against republican ideals and democratic values, against people like me and a lot of other Americans and others throughout the world.  And - most of all - against America itself, as an idea and a nation.

I am trying to like Clinton, really. I am trying because I liked Clinton at first and didn't decide that I'd support Obama until Kennedy made his endorsement.  And then I decided to vote for Obama, not against Clinton.  But now, as Clinton's slash and burn strategy is in full force, she's really upsetting me.  

Hillary, please... please... I am begging you: STOP!  You need to stop, because you are creating a narrative that can only hurt progressive causes.  You are making me wonder, are you really a Republican?  Is this it? Was the Clinton shift to the centre about more than winning in 1992, but also about destroying progressive values in America.  Because you are acting like you'd rather McCain win in November than Obama. And if that is so, then you are not a Democrat and you should fess up to this.

I sure got 2008 wrong in 2005.  For starters, I decided I'd support Hillary Clinton because she seemed like a sure way to defeat any Republican. And I thought that the election would be about nostalgia for the "good old Clinton years."  I thought all of this as George Bush's second term dragged on, just before Katrina served us another reminder of how seriously wrong things could get.  And that's why I helped create a web site dedicated to electing Bill Clinton as "first lady."  The site was meant to be a bit funny, and also a bit serious.  But, in retrospect it was just wrong.

Thinking about how much more serious this election is than I imagined, and how much better a set of choices we've being given than I predicted, the thought of a Bill-for-First-Lady.com web site seems, to be perfectly frank, rather stupid.  So here's how I got it so wrong...

It is looking more and more likely that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is about to be tested on what it takes for Democrats to win: Run liberal. Ralph Nader on the Meet the Press today repeated this mantra, and he even ceded that Barack Obama is as a "liberal evangelist."  

Since Bil Clinton shifted the Democrats to the right, we've been saying that being "Republican-lite" is a losing strategy.  In groaning about Gore, supporting Dean and predicting a train wreck for Kerry we've been saying that "moving to the base" and "standing up for progressive principles" is the winning combination, not sliding ever rightward to the center.

Words do matter.  Ted Kennedy's endorsement speech for Barack Obama led me to wholeheartedly support Obama - his speech was my tipping point. And three years ago Kennedy also offered me some of that very same hope that Obama is now leading the nation with.

Three years ago on January 20, 2005 another Kennedy speech changed me in many the same ways as did his recent speech endorsing Obama.  I don't normally recall speeches I've heard a few years back to the day.  But this speech I remember because it was on the same day that I had heard George Bush describe his hellish vision for his final years in the White House.  So thinking of other Kennedy's speech I looked back to the diary I wrote that day, and was surprised how much hopeful words mattered to me then.

Before Iowa 2004 there was a photo of Howard Dean running down the aisle of an airplane. He looked like such a winner, and he was being propelled into history by those of us who really believe that progressive politics are majority politics.  If only progressives stand tall, be proactive, claim the moral high ground we said they could win.  And then... Dean imploded.  Of course, "implosion" is unfair since the attack was relentless.  But nonetheless, in place of Dean we got John Kerry.  Kerry's strong point: He was "electable."

Because my politics are so out of step with the centre-right, I don't expect much from Democrats and I don't usually vote for them. Instead, since 1992 I've almost always (until Bush required otherwise) voted third party.

When I voted for John Kerry it was not a vote for him, but it was instead a vote against the radical politics of George Bush and his allies in Congress. I said then that I'd most likely never vote Democratic again - since I want to vote for my ideals, not against my fears. That's part of why I moved to Canada.

I just got back from my first leafleting exercise in Toronto. It's a lot colder in Toronto than in Seattle. Note to self: Bring hand warmers.

As a media consultant with a background marketing it's easy to forget how powerful an experience it is to go out with a small group of like-minded people to invite others to join in can be.  It seems so simple - make some copies, stand outside a subway stop, gathering place or busy intersection and ask people to join you in a cause.  (The cause: Call your MP and ask them to support US war resisters to stay in Canada.) The simple (and cold) act of standing in the way of busy commuters on their way someplace repeating the words: "Support US War Resisters" with a flyer in hand is actually more powerful than the simplicity suggests.

War is a moral choice. War is moral because war is always a life and death matter. Lives are ended when wars are fought. Killing undeniably involves great moral questions. And war is a choice because people who fight in wars make a choice, to fight or not to fight. War is a moral choice made by politicians, generals and soldiers. Without these people to direct and wage war, wars simply do not happen.

What's in a job title?  In the past week two reporters have written stories that included me as an example of Americans moving to Canada.  In both I am a 34-year old "labour organizer."  But that is not what I told either, and it is not what I wrote in my follow up brief to either and it is not my job description.  Sure, I organize labour, but I am first and foremost a "human rights organizer." I work with human rights organizations, that are part of the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign. We focus on human rights for a reason, and call ourselves and our groups human rights organizations for the same reason. So what's in a name, and why does it matter so much that reporters get this right?

The story of record Americans leaving for Canada has been getting some coverage in Canada.  Yesterday I talked about my reasons for moving on an all news station in Vancouver and today the daily Toronto Star covered the study that points to record numbers of Americans moving to Canada.  While the numbers are small, last year a 30-year high was reached in the number of the Americans who moved.

Those of us who moved to Canada for political reasons are an indication that the United States is off track in a major way.  Bush's open acts of torture, major illegal invasions and occupations of aggression and the use of fear and serious propaganda to maintain power are all indicators that these times are not ordinary.  Bush is a threat to democracy.  He is a threat to America and it is time for extraordinary action.  That is why I moved and why I am glad that I've been lucky enough to publicly assign meaning to my move.

On Tuesday a reporter from ABCNews.com emailed me asking me about why I moved to Canada from the US.  I called him back and he included some of my comments in a article on "record numbers" of Americans moving to Canada. The  next day a producer from Fox News radio asked if I would talk about my move on Alan Colmes's show.  I said yes, and got an ear full from right wing callers happy that I had left, leaving America a better country without me.

On April 12 I became a permanent resident of Canada.  I decided to move from the US to Canada on the night that the President gave his 2005 State of the Union address.  I actually applied to Immigration Canada about a year and a half ago, which was granted just a few months ago.

I've been in Toronto since May 5, so I've been "moved to" Canada for about twenty days so far (I landed and became a resident of Canada in April, stayed a week, and then flew back home to finish packing).  Any move is a bit overwhelming, so I've put off thinking about the "leaving America" aspect of my move until the past few days.

I can sum up what leaving America feels like in two words: I cry.  I don't cry all the time, as the move is mostly fun and exciting.  But I do cry when I think about why I decided to change from one country to another.  I cry when I hear how others in the world, such as the Canadians I've met since moving, react to news from the US.  I cry when I think about the series of events that have unfolded since 2001, the torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, the illegal war of aggression and occupation in Iraq, the breakdown of the US media, the toothless response of the opposition.