> Dunno about the Greens, but Nader & Co. are notorious for their
>inability to work in coalitions...
>Not, of course, that the Democrats are any better. The Dems have
>repeatedly refused to organize their own mobs in Florida to counter
>the Republicans. Gore has proudly said that they don't do that sort
>of thing. They've actually sent good organizers home from Florida,
>too.
I never have seen Gore or other DLC-style Dems as part of such a left alliance. There are pragmatic alliances the Left will make for lesser-evil reasons in electoral and other venues, such as with Gore, but the question for the Greens is why in the end those left progressive forces - who have real alliances with each other - chose Gore over Nader. You can rail against the corruption of the NAACP and AFL-CIO leadership, but what is remarkable it that Nader could not even swing a no endorsement stance from any major progressive enviro or labor group, save the UE and CNA who climbed on board.
It is a remarkable failure made even more remarkable by the indifference shown towards working for such an alliance in the future.
-- Nathan Newman