I’m watching Anderson Cooper on CNN. When I last checked in, Cooper was the only one who knew the identity of The Mole, which should give him a leg up and predicting the outcome of the election, I guess.
He’s interviewing Ralph Nader, and is taking the same tack that Nader must have endured 10,000 times this election: “you still have blood on your hands from 2000, what are you running if you have no chance of winning?”
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000: I think he’s a brilliant, impassioned man, and I applaud him for running, fueled by conviction, this time around. I wish interviewers could set the “you have no chance so why bother?” line of questioning aside. Not only for Nader, but for all candidates. It’s boring, it doesn’t teach us anything, and it demeans democracy.
I didn’t vote for Nader this time around. Not because I don’t continue to believe in his message, but because, even though, as a New York elector, I’m not voting in a “swing state,” I couldn’t conscience even the hint of blood on my hands should Bush win.
Of course that’s the same logic that meant I didn’t vote Green in the Canadian election in June, even though I believed in their platform ahead of any other.
Perhaps the next time I vote for someone, I’ll do it with conviction and passion, and not as part of a collective voodoo chess game.