"GUEST, your take on the political system in this country reminds me of the ivory tower view of the world that a group of Objectivists (Ayn Rand enthusiasts) I used to run with a few decades ago."

Then you aren't reading what I'm saying very closely. What I am saying is about as far from Ayn Rand objectivism as a person can get. But nice try smearing me with a "guilt by association" argument.

"GUEST, you have an idealistic, ivory tower view of the way our political system works."

Hmmm, and now a try at a left handed compliment, and appropriation of Big Mick's "ivory tower" epithet. Pathetic really, that you are so out of touch with what is happening in the political trenches here and now. There is nothing "ivory tower" or "purist" or "idealist" about the debate over whether or not Kerry actually IS electable among Democrats and non-Democrats alike. Just because the Democratic Leadership Council and Terry McAuliffe shove this candidate down everyone's throat doesn't make him the best, or most electable choice in the general election. And what, pray tell, will you do if Kerry's cancer comes out of remission between now and August?

"I admire your idealism."

No actually, you don't. And you detest the fact that I dare challenge the Democratic party line, and will do anything you think will work to discredit me personally, rather than engage in a policy debate on Kerry's stands, his votes, and his public record.

"This is a two party system. It's designed to be that way."

By the two parties.

"The way to make the kind of changes you want is to get involved with the party that most closely reflects your beliefs, even if it is a long way from what your beliefs are, and work to veer that party in the direction you want it to go."

No, that isn't the best way to make the kind of changes I want to the two party system. Transforming the two party system to a proportional representation system where the two parties don't have a monopoly, will never happen from within either party. Those changes will be brought about the same way virtually all sweeping changes are brought about, which is by outside influences.

"Bush lost the popular vote last time around (even with Nader and these other folks in there) but got in due to a) Gore's inaction when he should have demanded a full recount in Florida; b) the Machiavellian machinations of brother Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris; and a conservative Supreme Court, who should have stayed the hell out of it."

Right. We agree on this. So can you explain again why third parties are the threat to Kerry winning? There are many--and I'm talking about conventional punditry here--who believe that this election is now Kerry's to lose, because this election is going to end up being a referendum on the Bush presidency, and not a race between Bush and the Democratic "anybody but Bush" candidate.

"Think of what he might try to do if he actually wins this next election and assumes he has a mandate from the American people!??"

So, you are suggesting we should just walk into the voting booth blindfolded and ignorant of what Kerry might do to the American people and the world? I don't vote that way, and I hope no one else votes that way either.

Rather than just sticking my head in the sand (which is what you are, in essence, suggesting all good Americans do in order to defeat Bush), and voting for whomever the Democratic Leadership Council and Terry McAuliffe annoint, I'll examine Kerry's record, debate with other voters, and make up my mind for myself, regardless of what "anybody but Bush" demagogues like yourself keep admonishing the rest of us to do.