The 2004 U.S. presidential election was an affront to true democracy, just as the support of John Kerry for the Bush administration’s criminal invasion of Iraq, is an affront to true liberalism. As Gore Vidal has rightly noted, the voting in the 2004 election (much like that of its 2000 predecessor) was effectively rigged in advance by the council of unelected corporate clerics that decided who would and who wouldn’t be allowed to run. And this is for a presidency, remember, that has no power to do anything the unelected corporate-clerical establishment does not want done, as amply demonstrated by the relentless demonization of conender John Kerry, despite the obvious fact that his liberal reputation was plainly undeserved. George W. Bush’s previous presidential term, from 2000 to 2004, like that of his predecessors from both political parties was scarred by state-sponsored terrorism at home and abroad. Yet Mr. Bush now claims to stand as the embodiment of freedom throughout the world.

These manipulations have tempted millions to stay home, so as not to legitimize future sham exercise. Should they steel themselves and vote anyway? Would boycotting elections benefit only the most antidemocratic forces on the corproate-clerical right?

For all of their multiple flaws, elections remain a potential tool available to the American people to indicate which way they want their troubled country to head over the next four year span. Their outcome will affect how America is run and how it deals with the world. Particularly important is the nuclear weapons issue, now even more critical in light of the latest disclosure that the U.S. has been experimenting not just with enriched uranium but also with an alternative nuclear bomb fuel, plutonium.

Some European leaders have been quietly rooting for what’s left of the Democratic party, which is quite close to the ruling Ayatollahs, in the hope that they would be most able to reach an acceptable nuclear deal and then sell it to the corporate-clerical establishment. There is little in his record to justify such hopes. The world would be better off if the people used their little influence to press for more authentic democracy by any means necessary.