WHY I WAS STUPID TO VOTE FOR KERRY
What the Left Must Learn from 2004

From CounterPunch:

Remember how Kerry just couldn't get anything right? He was constantly in flux. That's why more people were mobilized against Bush than for Kerry. If we learned anything from 2004, we should realize that hatred of an incumbent is not enough to elect a challenger. Had the antiwar movement mobilized behind an antiwar candidate, despite who he or she was, and despite the alleged consequences - Kerry would have felt tremendous pressure to differentiate himself from the Bush agenda, and particularly Bush's position on Iraq. But Kerry couldn't do it. Nobody was pressuring him. So he wavered, collapsed, and lost a monumental election. In the end it wasn't just the election that was lost, the soul of the antiwar movement was lost too.

Click here for the rest.

Kerry is a hawk who didn't want to get out of Iraq, and he's a Clintonite on economics, in other words, conservative: he's very much something that I don't want in the White House. But, noooooooo! I had to buy the bullshit about getting Bush out, whatever the cost; bury my ideological differences for another time; band together with liberals and defeat the enemy. Whatever. Nader's right to keep fucking with the Democrats. They'll never change unless they have some compelling reason to do so, and the threat of losing their progressive base is a very compelling reason, indeed. Face it, if all we (meaning progressives) ever vote for is "the lesser of two evils," then that's what we'll always get. Evil.

Screw that.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$