I Disagree.

George McGovern is wrong, I am afraid, and I greatly respect him. But the notion that taking an unpopular stand is better than winning when winning is possible, is absolutely idiotic.

The problem is McGovern and Schell are both oblivious to reality. This is NOT 1972 when Democrats still had control of Congress, both houses, and therefore a loss of the presidency wasn't fatal to the Democrats (as Nixon ended up in the trashbin of history). These times are a lot more perilous because the Republicans have it all, and if the goddamned progressives don't cut the self-righteous bullshit and proceed to back people who can't win, we are going to be destroyed as a country. There will be nothing to stop the people in charge from running roughshod over the American people.

The nation WON'T change for the better if somebody like Dean is beaten in every state of the union. We won't have a nation at all.

Frankly, I am also tired of people continuing to ignore the real comparisons between now and 1972, or rather 1971, when Nixon, like Bush, was on the ropes. The anti-war movement was at its peak, the Pentagon Papers had been released, and the Democrats smelled blood because Nixon's re-election prospects were not that great. So, the Democrats had several candidates, including Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, George Wallace, George McGovern, and best of all, Ed Muskie. Muskie, felt Nixon's boys, was the man for them to beat. And because Muskie was such a threat, the hatchet men decided to create a dirty tricks' operation, the purpose of which was to bounce out the stronger candidates and leave the weakest candidate (according to the polls, McGovern) to go up against Nixon. Now although Segretti and the rest pulled off their "ratfucking" operation, none of them truly believed it worked, but it did. Nixon got the man he wanted, McGovern, and he proceeded to win in a rout.

The same thing could well happen with Bush. That's why I so distrust the movement for Howard Dean because he's so brazenly unelectable, and no, it's not because he has any principles, unlike McGovern. It's pure, raw ambition, and it's catering to certain interest groups. They are very similar to the "interest" groups who supported McGovern in his hugely unsuccessful quest for the presidency. They are also similarly open to manipulation by the fascists.

We ignore the parallels at our own peril. This is why I don't gloat when I read about Bush's poll numbers being in the tank. When the Republicans/fascists are down, that's when they are the most dangerous.