Gabriel Ash explains why he won't vote for Kerry (excerpt):

....I don't want to have to lie about my vote. I don't want to have to explain that I didn't really support Kerry's de-facto endorsement of ethnic cleansing even though I voted for him. It sounds like a lame excuse and it is. I don't want to have to admit to my hosts that I voted for Kerry because I thought about retirement savings and health insurance and personal security and I forgot all about Nablus and about what they were going through. Therefore, on election day, I won't forget Nablus and I won't vote for Kerry. I know many will consider this a betrayal. There is a deafening silence regarding Kerry among the progressive leadership, a shameful silence that stills that familiar argument: this is the time if there ever was one to vote strategically for the lesser evil; Bush is destroying America and stopping him must be the highest priority. This argument would be more convincing if it weren't dusted and deployed every four years. It is a self-serving argument for key progressive demographics. The palpable terror Bush evokes in the heart of many Americans is well founded. Bush is a direct menace to the wellbeing and finances of middle class America. As far as we are concerned, there is a real difference between Kerry and Bush. But the farther away one stands, the smaller the difference between them appears. For 50% percent of Americans, the difference is probably too small to justify the trip to the polls. For the victims of American imperialism, there really is no difference. It is a choice between two different commitments to bomb them into submission. The next election is not taking the shape of a referendum on the American empire, but rather a contest in management skills. Kerry claims he would be a better steward of the empire. He would be better at pacifying Iraq, better at forcing U.S. solutions on the Middle East, better at getting the world to submit to U.S. will. Perhaps he would. But ought we help him? What is our stake in improving the quality of management of the empire? Many of us do have a stake and that may be the problem. The "anything but Bush" argument today is self-interest masquerading as high-mindedness. When one says that anyone is better than Bush, what is left unsaid is that we, too, have a stake in the success of U.S. world domination. Bush's mismanagement is a threat to us because it threatens to bring down the empire, and with it the relatively sheltered lifestyle of those who manage to live well inside the beast. But can we honestly say that a better managed American imperialism makes the world a better place for others, too? Does it help the people of the world that most of the huge "research" budget of American universities has something to do with developing more effective ways to kill people? Will an American victory in the war in Iraq help Americans who can't afford seeing a family doctor? On election day, we have a choice. We can vote our complicity with imperialism or our solidarity with its victims. I do not argue that "the worse the better." If I did, I would have to advocate voting for Bush. All I say is that I do not know whether a Bush or a Kerry presidency would be better for those who have no rights. I do not know, partly because this isn't an election issue. Both contenders are committed to extending and yielding U.S. military and financial power without consideration to its victims, both at home and abroad. The "strategic vote" is, therefore, limited to "strategic from the standpoint of my own narrow interest." The conflict about whether to vote for "the lesser of two evils" is mis-framed as a conflict between pragmatism and idealism – "something is better than nothing" vs. "all or nothing." It is rather a conflict between narrow self-interest and ethics. Let those who support imperialism debate how best to run an empire. The right thing to do is to use our power to vote, symbolically, to signal our refusal to contribute to a civic conversation about the quality of imperial management and domination. It is almost a futile gesture, but not completely so; it is an act of solidarity with the disenfranchised.

At this time I plan to vote for Kerry, although I am not convinced it will make any difference (if he wins). About the only impression I have of Kerry is that he jumps from one bandwagon to another, depending on which one is the most popular. Honestly, the only candidate who has shown any commitment to his (non-religious) beliefs and who has faithfully kept his word is Dennis Kucinich. Unless Dennis becomes President, the only ones who will come out ahead in this election are the recipients of all the campaign advertising $'s.