Friday, June 04, 2004

The Progressive Paradox: Defining Viability

By Kim Petersen

Read full article...

Posted 06/04 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register
  1. Let’s see, Kerry is an insipid egotist who is, as your article suggests Bush-Lite.  Nader is full of honesty, integrity, and progressive ideals, and nothing but.  Whom to support?  It’s a no-brainer, let the chips fall where they may.

    I think Kerry could actually be more harmful to the future of this country than Bush, as Gabriel Kolko has so cogently pointed out.  At least with Bush what you see is what you get.  Kerry’s policies, every bit as reactionary as Bush’s, may lull progressives to sleep, and abate the rush to U.S. isolation that Bush is engendering. 

    What more about the serial war criminal Kerry do progressives need to see than his lugubrious speeches in front of all the symbols of American power and militarism?  Talking about flexing that power that has been so repressive in so many different parts of the world for so long, but doing it in a newer, updated, and although he never so much says it as it’s understood, benign version?  Uh uh, not me.  Kerry is twice as contemptible as Clinton, both of them for that matter, if that’s possible.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  06/06  at  03:36 PM
  2. I am not implying in my article that Nader is “full of honesty, integrity, ... and nothing but.” Nader does offer a progressive platform but there are question marks concerning the manner in which he is seeking the presidency.

    Nonetheless, as far as is apparent to me, Bush and Kerry offer zilch to attract those people aspiring to a better world.

    Posted by kim from  on  06/08  at  01:51 PM
  3. zilch to the third power.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  06/08  at  05:57 PM
  4. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    [ads]

    Support Press Action