Why the Democratic Party would rather lose this election
-- Michael Albert
clarifies the strategic implications of voting Nader: "Liberals talk and write as though the most important thing in captivity is their winning the election, or at least Bush not winning it. But at the top of their campaign, centrally important policies demonstrate that winning the election is not, in fact, their first priority. For them, priority one is serving the interests of their elite constituencies, and, just below that, of the Party itself...."
Also: hard-core Nader junkies should check out this vigorous (but quite long) rant: What every Republicrat should know (but is afraid to ask)
And, finally, a reason to join Greenpeace: new executive director John Passacantando takes a refreshingly sane, nonhysterical approach to Election 2000
Hey Bay Area Nader fans -- get your tickets!
(if you haven't already) -- 6:30 PM today at the Kaiser Arena in Oakland: the only
California Super Rally, featuring Cornel West, Medea Benjamin, Danny Glover, Jello Biafra, Patti Smith, Tom Tomorrow, and other surprise guests! For those who can't make it there will be a Live Webcast
available at votenader.org
Face it: Gore doesn't have a chance.
-- So what is going on? In an illuminating essay
, Bijan Parsia suggests a cheap way that Gore might 'soften his anti-progressive image', but then concludes wisely that 'that image isn't merely skin deep'. Barbara Ehrenreich
argues along similar lines. So will Gore lose because he has permanently alienated the progressive vote, or for other reasons? And regardless, what will a Bush victory mean for progressives? (more inside...)