Progressives and the election.

I read the columns of Ruth Conniff ("Triumph of the Bland," April issue) and Molly Ivins ("Kerry, Sigh," April issue). Conniff criticizes Senator Kerry for raising funds to run against Bush's $250 million. Any candidate would be stupid not to raise funds to go against an incumbent with the largest campaign war chest in the history of the world.

As for bland, here's what I know about Kerry: He rides a Harley Davidson motorcycle, snowboards and skies, plays ice hockey, kite surfs, hunts, can play a guitar, and can fly a jet. I believe it would take a lot of smarts and talent to be able to do all of those things. Besides, he's a good Senator. Why not try and find his strong points and contrast them with those of Bush, DeLay, Cheney, Hastert, and all the other Republicans who did not go to Vietnam?

Jon Krecker via e-mail

What's a progressive to do when mainstream candidates would rather pledge allegiance to corporations than democracy? What's a progressive to do when both major parties prefer a state of war to public well-being, security, and rights? What's a progressive to do when both parties, for over two decades, have failed to represent progressive ideals and values? What's a progressive to do when voters themselves are mostly reactionary, ignorant, or at least willing continually to accept inadequate representation and the lesser of evils?

Both Ruth Conniff and your editorial ("Nader's Wrong Turn," Comment) in your April issue note that Democratic nominee-apparent John Kerry is beholden to the "corporate paymasters." A conclusion Conniff seems to reach is that, in nominating Kerry, progressives again will find no voice in the Democratic Party. And Molly Ivins calls Kerry "our boring stiff."

But your Comment ignores the fact that the Democrats have not heard the lesson Nader was trying to teach in 2000, and they continue to ignore their own progressive roots and to shun progressive voters. Further, I would agree with Nader that there remains only negligible difference between Republicans and Democrats.

So what's a progressive to do when it becomes abundantly clear that both major political parties are corrupt and probably can be considered obstacles to democracy? We all need to accept the fact that the institutionalized two party system as we have it is the problem. Probably we need to stop accepting inadequate representation and the lesser of evils when we vote; it may be that we need to vote for democracy in the future rather than for the least undemocratic candidate today. I honestly don't yet know what I will do in November, but I do know that progressives need to dialogue about this state of affairs. We need to tell Kerry and the Democratic Party that they are not of the same fabric as we are.

Barry N. Bishop

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

To all you masochists out there babbling about Nader being a spoiler: Kerry will not "stop the pain." He will not even ameliorate it. Kerry will disappoint all those millions with illusions about the difference between the two capitalist parties. We need a Labor Party.

John Briggs

Sun Prairie, Wisconsin