Common Dreams: 3 kinds of articles; Democrats: one kind of victory?

There are three kinds of articles on Common Dreams, a Progressive website which seems to consist largely of whole-hog copying of articles from a variety of sources:

  1. Pimp Kerry’s policies.
    There aren’t too many of these articles because you can’t polish a turd.
  2. Criticize Bush’s policies.
    There is a lot to work with here because Bush’s policies have hurt the US at home and abroad. But the most offensive of these articles are the ones that never mention how Kerry is no better.
  3. Piss on Nader.
    The third of these are articles which try to demonize Nader for daring to compete with the Democratic Party. Unlike in 2000, the Greens don’t receive this criticism this time around because their candidate, David Cobb, has been running a “safe-state” campaign where the Greens concede the floor to the Democrats in the states which the Democrats most want to win.

The Democrats are taking a very odd tactic for the second term in a row: bitch at anyone who won’t vote for Kerry (particularly those in contested states who will vote for Nader). Has yelling at someone ever convinced them to do what you want? Does that work with you? Does presenting only one side of the story (how the opponent sucks) convince you that there are only two ways to decide the matter and that you had better pick the other candidate? Are you more likely to buy into an idea because someone has threatened you with mass destruction and oppression if you don’t go along? These are the impressions I get from the Democrats for two terms now.

Meanwhile, the Democrats still don’t care about the thousands of overwhelmingly Black and Latino voters in Florida who have still not regained their voting rights. Many Floridian Blacks and Latinos were prohibited from voting in 2002, and still won’t be able to vote in 2004. Janet Reno was able to run in Florida on the Democratic Party ticket without ever raising the loss of voting rights as a campaign issue. This says as much about the corporate media as it does about the Democratic Party. But it suggests a more disturbing pattern may be afoot.

Donna J. Warren identified a number of big issues in which the Democrats were on a wrong side of the debate, sometimes even helping their Republican counterparts move legislation that hurt Progressive voters.

What if the Democrats are losing to win another goal: the complete eradication of other progressive parties and independent candidates. What if the Democrats realize that by going along with Republican Party bills, losing close races by not trying as hard as they can (remember when no Senators signed that Congressional Black Caucus letter about the Florida voters “scrubbed” from the voting rolls?), taking corporate campaign funding (which wouldn’t be necessary if they trusted that their message would resonate with the voters), they can lose to win big points for their corporate friends by solidifying a two-party system where both parties exist to shuffle more money and influence into corporate hands?