And P6 makes three
don't be too complacent
when clinton was elected, me and a small cadre of liberal-leaning leftists [as opposed to left-leaning liberals, if you get my meaning] celebrated with naive joy, and after a what seemed like a long sojourn in a wilderness of despair during reagan's war on central america and bush's war on everyone else, some of the relief was justified. however, it didn't take too long before we were devastated by the sense that we'd been taken. if, of course, we had been as savvy readers-between-the-lines as we are now [thanks in great part to the internet, which believe it or not has successfully re-radicalized a few of us] we would never have turned our backs to him. now, in retrospect and all things considered, i like the sleazy reprobate in spite of myself - he was a tool in so many ways, but only insofar as he was a part of a much larger problem.
now that it looks like bush's ship is going down, which is just fine, we have to remain vigilant and ready to fight. winning this battle will not mean winning the war, if whoever stands in bush's place remains an unquestioned, unchallenged tool of the corporations that are destroying our planet.
On April 2, 2003, in a campaign talk in Peterborough, New Hampshire, John Kerry said, "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Kerry's success, both as the anointed Democratic candidate and prospective president, depends on him getting enough Americans to take that idea seriously.Webster's dictionary defines a regime as a "system of rule." In Iraq, changing the regime required not just taking out Saddam Hussein but changing the despotic system of rule created by the Baathist Party, with American connivance, for 35 years. In U.S. politics, it means sending the president packing. But there's a second stage of regime change that deserves more discussion. We need to abolish the corporate system of rule that currently dominates democracy.
