Do NOT call yourself left in any degree if you say you wont vote against the terrorists.

[markpkessinger]

142. Indeed -- I may be stuck with her too . . .

. . . and in that case, yes, I will vote for her. But she is NOT the nominee yet, and I sure as hell hope we have a different candidate to vote for. And until such time as she IS the nominee, I'll be damned if I'll refrain from criticizing her.

But there IS a cogent argument to be made -- not an argument I can fully agree with, mind you, but it is a cogent one nevertheless -- that the rightward drift of the party will not reverse direction unless and until candidates who participate in that drift pay a political price for it. That is to say, that the "lesser of two evils" is still evil. They argue further that if we want to see a genuine change in direction in this country, then, as left wingers, we need either to (a) withhold votes from the candidates of the party that purports to be the left-wing party in this country when those candidates continue to embrace the corporatist agenda, or (b) work on creating a party that <i>will</i> be responsive to our priorities and values.

As I say, although the argument is a pretty good one, I can't embrace it. My response to it is simply that is threefold: (1) the fact is that elections, in the end, come down to choices, and the available choices are rarely ideal; (2) while it may be possible to force the party to our way of thinking by withholding votes, that strategy is essentially the same one the Tea Party used on the GOP (where it had some success, but exacted a terrible long-term price); and (3) the deck is pretty much stacked by state balloting regulations against the success of third parties, so I just don't see that as a realistic option.

I may not see that argument as presenting any viable solutions, but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it. So I'm not about to accuse anyone of being a propagandist merely because the evaluate that argument differently from the way I evaluate it.