Well, this is weird... As we are about to go to print, I discover that I am responsible for laying out the above hit piece on David Cobb and the Greens--which, due to my proximity to the matter, I know to be full of gross misrepresentations and unfair character assassination of a very good man. I know this because I've long been a Green Party activist, currently serve as facilitator (a.k.a., "chair") for the Green Party of Seattle, and have consequently followed very closely the raging debates among Greens about 2004 presidential politics. In my role as Green Party officer, it's my job to promote the party candidate; in my heart and mind, I deeply believe that David Cobb is the best choice at this time for building the Greens into a progressive political force to be reckoned with; in my role as ETS! layout guy, I'm supposed to lay out St. Clair's smear without comment.

Oh dear. What a conflicted mess.

I'm unable to convince this issue's editor that running the piece is a really bad idea. When is it ever a good idea to devote 1,400 words to intramural trash talk among progressives? (I'm in favor of constructive criticism; I oppose personal attacks; I know how to tell the difference.) No, I'm told, St. Clair has been a reliable columnist for years; it's a conflict of interest for me to try to nix his piece; yadda yadda... Besides, it's summer and we don't have much to choose from. But maybe we could run a short rebuttal alongside the piece...

OK. Here goes...

Ever hear the joke, "How do you form a leftist firing squad?" A: Give everyone guns and have them face each other in a circle.

I'm sorry to see the normally reliable Jeffrey St. Clair firing away at the wrong target. Instead of simply acknowledging that strategic differences of opinion are normal among progressives, he and other Naderites apparently feel compelled to vilify and slander those they disagree with.

The crux of the disagreement is this: Cobb knows that you can't build a broad movement by alienating your potential allies--that's why he's built a strategy inclusive of those progressives who see beating Bush as the primary objective this year. The key is to get those people to see that, while beating Bush this year is important, building a long-term political alternative to represent the voices of peace, justice, and ecological sustainability is even more important. Cobb's strategy is to do both.

This strategy has absolutely nothing to do with appeasing Democrats; it's about building the broadest base for an emergent counter-power to the two-party system.

The Nader/Camejo strategy is different. They believe that power comes from the threat of "denying Kerry the presidency," even if that position alienates most of their potential base of allies. They denounce anyone who suggests that four more years of Bush would be more harmful than four years under Kerry. I'd ask St. Clair the same question he poses: "How do you build a grassroots movement when you spend most of your time driving people away from your party?" Theirs is a minority position among progressives and among Greens, but they have every right to pursue it.

The beauty of this year's election season is that people who agree with Nader's independent strategy can vote for him. Those who support building up an institutional alternative to the two major parties can vote for Cobb. Those who live in swing states can decide whether they wish to support one of these options or hold their noses and vote against Bush by voting Kerry. Let the voters decide.

As for the specific charges St. Clair makes against Cobb and his supporters, I don't have space here to counter each one, but here's a few responses. As for the "rigged" convention, the nominating process was carefully developed with widespread input over several months. After it didn't yield the result some wanted, they called it unfair. As for "smear tactics," I've got archives of literally hundreds of e-mails from Green Party lists which show that almost all of the attacks and name-calling came from Naderites against the Cobb camp, not the other way around (with the present article as a case in point). "Autocrat?" Nader has said he didn't want Green Party influence on his campaign strategy; Cobb welcomes grassroots input from all Greens.

Let's stop attacking each other and focus on the real work.