[aristeides]

I suppose there is something to be said for leftists being open about their beliefs. But then, why did you guys support the deeply dishonest and corrupt Clinton (and end up being fanatical, last-ditch defenders of him)? And why have you leftists in the RAT Party been so contemptuous and abusive towards Nader and the Greens? Seems to me honesty would suggest that you join them.

[bain_sidhe]

As I said in the post above, I'm not here to argue my beliefs - I realize this isn't the place for that. But, to answer your question:

But then, why did you guys support the deeply dishonest and corrupt Clinton

I can't speak for all lefties - it might surprise you to know, I considered myself a moderate until I was "radicalized" by the Ken Starr witch hunt - and, of course, the 2000 (s)Election. (Had to get that in. *G*) I supported Clinton because I supported incremental change, not wholesale restructuring. I wanted to move *toward* more (what I view as) fairness in our society, with a bit more power for "the little guy" and a bit less power for "the big (money) guy" and corporations. I have no interest in breaking corporations, or even taxing them to death. I just want them to pay their fair share, and be accountable for their misdeeds. Some corporations under Reagan paid less in taxes than the the people who cleaned their offices did. The rightward tilt of the courts meant that more and more cases were being decided in favor of corporations and/or against individual's rights. (Again, my views. I don't expect you to agree.)

I think the "dishonest" and "corrupt" part is a matter of whose ox is getting gored, to be frank. I feel the same about Bush. As far as "fanatical defenders" - well, I think the whole Ken Starr-impeachment debacle was a cynical effort to overthrow a popular President with whom his attackers disagreed politically (and if not overthrow him, at least to prevent him from enacting any of the policies he advocated). It wasn't about the lying, it wasn't about the blow-job, it wasn't about a failed land deal. It was raw partisanship, and it was wrong. Whatever I thought about Clinton's antics paled beside my anger at the rabid (and ultimately, unjustified) attacks on him.

Nader. Well. What can I say? I believe that if he was truly a progressive, he wouldn't have been out stumping to defeat progressive Democrats, he would have been doing all he could to increase the progressive representation within the Democratic party - you know, the folks that actually have a chance of getting eleceted. I believe his true goal was to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans, because, in his own words, "it has to get worse before it can get better." Faugh. A pox on him!