Letters to the Editor
BadgerBlue
Published Letters: 193 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Goedel, that's your opinion and not "an answer".
[Read the article: Nader and Kucinich pick sides in Iowa]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm frankly pretty tired of that viewpoint from your and other Nader apologists' narrow prism. I never said Gore or Kerry ran good campaigns. Far from it. But trusting the wrong people to run thier campaigns doesn't make them cowards who lack principles or full blown traitors to The New Deal. Furthermore, Nader wasn't on the ticket strictly in the state of Florida. He and his overly self righteous supporters were a constant obstacle in an abundance of states for people like me fighting door to door to keep extremely close state and local races from "turning red". Not every Democrat in 2000 or '04 for that matter was part of some Washington establishment elite and certainly didn't have some unlimited money supply or well-financed media campaign you alluded to as a means to vanquish Nader's spoiler presence.
Maybe you or any of the rest of the Nader-is-so-pure crowd never had to live in a town where Republicans took control by less than ten votes and then had to watch while they attempted to close public schools that were among the top 1% in state performance. I'll guarantee you that people here who bought that Nader 2000 bull only to watch how Republicans ran things didn't turn off to him in '04 because of some Democratic hit job. Just because you keep insisting that Nader didn't spoil it for Gore doesn't mean he didn't spoil it for plenty of communities all over the country where people were fighting like mad to hang on to Progressive ideals. Anybody doing even two hours of objective research on Bush's and Gore's backgrounds in 2000 would have come to the conclusion that one was intelligent and could handle complex challenges and the other was clearly too stupid to belong there. Nader parading around with his "there's no difference" act, whether it cost Gore or not, was an insult to the truth.
Gore very well would have at least said "Come again?" when listening to the contents of the August 6th of 2001 memo. He definitely wouldn't have cabinet members cook up phony trash intel to start a war with a country that didn't attack us on 9/11 and get thousands of innocent people killed. He certainly wouldn't have loosened pollution standards on big business or jam incompetent cronies into key government positions like FEMA like his "clone" did. Had Nader just admitted even once that America would have been spared tremendous grief had Bush not been in The White House and that he would have done things differently had he known how badly Progressive institutions would be put in peril, I might not have such a blatant disdain for the man.
But he hasn't. Don't try to pin his even more pathetic run in '04 on some Democratic conspiracy. By then, plenty of people learned the hard way that Nader was full of it. They had every reason to ignore him then just as Edwards has every reason to ignore him now.
-
Hey, who cares about the weather?
[Read the article: Last thoughts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unless a new tradition begins tonight where Iowans start to caucus outside in the parking lots, I think it's a pretty good bet that the seniors will take part in comparible numbers to past turnouts. It was pretty cold here in the cheese state as well and the the old folks were out and about and that was just for the pick-of-the-litter for fresh produce at the grocery store. If Clinton polls well with that group, she has at least one reason to feel good because old people will show up to pick a candidate. Besides, with the writers strike offering them a nite of re-runs on the TV, they probably are getting tired of sitting inside playing bridge or sheepshead. They will come out.
-
Salon didn't have a problem with Mitchell when she carried Clinton's water
[Read the article: Andrea Mitchell's strange attack against Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry Alex, but I can't recall any Salon contributer crying foul with Andrea Mitchell's fawning praise of Clinton "re-establishing her dominance" after Harry Ried's son stacked the Nevada debate audience with Clinton's big money donor interests that shouted, booed, heckled and constantly interrupted Obama and Edwards nearly every time they tried to speak on the stage. By no means am I defending Mitchell as I think she's scum. But as the letters section on many of these threads clearly show, I'm by no means alone when I suggest that Salon seems to be living in a glass house when the subject comes to balanced reporting concerning each and all candidates. I have no problem with a reporter or writer being upfront and honest about rooting for Clinton to win the game, but there's a difference between rooting for her and continually trying to throw it for her. Maybe Mitchell finally had to admit what a great deal of people already concluded long ago - The Clinton campaign has been "manufactured".