I swear all the time, so any attempt to score debate points by accusing me of swearing is pretty stupid, even though it is certainly a predictable response from all you 'nice' middle class mainstream Democrat sheep.

Here is more from Michael Albert of ZNet:

"Regarding the two dominant parties, mainstream campaigns of course overwhelmingly disenfranchise and depoliticize people. This is why the media obliterated Howard Dean despite the fact that Dean is no less an ally of elite interests than Kerry is. I don't know why Dean's campaign morphed to the point of threatening to politicize young people and perhaps even poor people, but it did, and since that is the penultimate violation of elite interests in American politics, Dean's campaign had to be derailed, and it was.

Evidencing the same underlying dynamics, Kerry will try to win the election not by contesting the allegiances of the 50% of the population that typically doesn't vote, but instead by fighting to win a majority of the 10% or so of swing voters in each state. In fact, if we count only swing states, this election will probably address primarily 4% of the voters and only 2% of the population.

Now here is the thing. Whatever each person believes about these matters, at this point there is undoubtedly more benefit in his or her doing what he or she finds most warranted rather than wasting time berating other leftists for having a different viewpoint.

By now the berating of other leftists is useless. Pretty much everyone on the left knows where they stand. Few if any leftists are likely to significantly change their approach. The only relevant new information that may surface between now and November will be indications of likely election voting, not positions of candidates or evidence of efficacy of campaigning. So let's just give up the left on left electioneering, is my advice. By doing so, we can collectively save a lot of time and avoid a lot of needless arguing.

I certainly shudder every time our redundant efforts to beat Bush take the form of saying anything remotely nice about Kerry, who deserves nothing other than our steadfast opposition - hopefully when he is President, to be sure. And I shudder as well when our redundant efforts to beat Bush, or to urge others to do so, seem to be crowding out attention to the war, globalization, movement building per se, and so on.

In short, I guess what I am saying is that whatever your electoral inclinations, at this point repetitive, redundant entreaties about Kerry and Bush from leftists to other leftists, and even about Nader and Cobb from leftists to other leftists, and probably also entreaties from leftists to more mainstream citizens about Kerry/Bush, are most likely not the most efficient way to productively manifest our insights and utilize our energies.

So we are down to one debatable disagreement, it seems. In contested states should leftists spend any time trying to increase the vote for Cobb or Nader instead of being quiet or aiding Kerry? This is contentious. Logically, writing and speaking about it could affect people's choices. But I bet those who are for aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are against doing so that they should start doing it. And I bet those who are against aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are for doing so that they should stop doing it. So what is the point of reams of back and forth debate that can sour otherwise positive relations, I wonder?

At this point, the arguments have been made. So why don't we just do our things, hopefully including non electoral things, leaving one another alone, and letting the results of our separate efforts impact subsequent choices? I bet all sides will be better off for it."

So hey--why don't all you Kerry/Clinton Democrat suck-ups and ass kissers accept the fact that regardless of what YOU think everyone to the left of Attila the Hun ought to do this year, that you can't silence those of us who aren't willing to play along with the rules of the corporate two-party love fests, just to get rid of Bush no matter how much we think he needs to go?

I don't check my conscience and soul at the door, just to do what YOU consider the most politically expedient thing. Hell, I don't even agree with what you define as politically expedient anyway. In my mind, voting for Nader is the most politically expedient thing to do for this election. Other than that, I'm not working for any party or any politicians this year. I'm working on the same issues I have been working on for the better part of the last 20 years, and working on them outside and well clear of the two party corporate political system.

And I actually share Andrew Stern's opinion that a Bush win would be much better for the progressive left movements, for the US and world citizenry, and for the planet.