elections debate

my 2 cents on this debate: since there is no one rev Left view, I will express a particular socialist perspective. the end of apartheid in s.africa also facilitated capitalist globalization there, apartheid was a crutch for the capitalist class, the end of jim crow helped consolidate and strengthen american capitalism against a weaker section of southern capitalists, the entrance of women into the labor force served as an excuse for capitalists to lower wages for all and end the patriarchal "family wage", the gain of labor laws excluded Black domestics and Mexican farmworkers; the election of the first Black president facilitates the maintenance and renewal of american hegemony?!
all these are examples of struggles for democracy and liberation where diverse forces were in contention bout goals, leadership, etc. while rev. socialists (a term i understand to refer to Trots not just soc who are rev) argued that these struggles could end up being coopted and that independent politics was critical to preserving what was being fought for, other Leftists argued for working with, moving towards, the mainstream (the people or masses if you read Maoists) in a popular front against reaction, fascism etc (sound familiar?!). this meant they said they were critical of but would support and at the same time would not create an alternative institution as part of being critical of.
i am voting for the mckinney/clemente ticket because i think we need to create alternative institutions because thats how we create democratic structures that will last, develop political leaders,establish collective accountability. while this is, should be, true for all structures, I just point this out in the context of elections and parties because it is important that we create political collectives (primer or parties) where people can join and feel its a space of de-alienation. therefore, while i think theres a time and place for not-voting (and while in PR i didnt vote cause I was clear that even minor changes were due to the grassroots), that has to be decided based on the particular conjuncture of forces and interplay with the political structure. but I dont agree with not-voting as a principle, i think that dismisses a whole arena where many people are located and suggests they cant be moved or wont agree with us. thus we dont engage or even try to influence them. Do we think they wont/cant budge?
while its true that there might be only a dimes worth of difference between dems and republicans, that dime might mean alot. having said that, i still wont vote for Obama because I am more fearful of not trying to build the seeds of the future now, and that the choices we make will end up smacking us in the face later. sure mccain scares me but little did "we" know we should of really been scared of bill clinton. my point is not just that we might have more room for justice with obama but that the capitalists will have more room for exploitation with obama.
i mean why do they supprt him as much as "we" do? bush/neocons have been bad for capitalism, like this current crises. yet, the level of opposition under Bush (like giuliani) has been huge and has helped to revitalize movements. havent we all been busy these last 8 years!
do we think there will come a time to attempt building alternatives?
or how will long-lasting fundamental change be made possible?
remember, many of us were schooled by the generation that got radicalized because they finally grasped the system and the Dem/liberal role in it. they went from radicals to revolutionaries because they turned away from the Dems/liberals/progressives and thus inspired the world!

saulo