My goodness I'm reading your posts! I can't let this go without comment. In this election I've been positively wishy-washy, or in a kindler and gentler language, ambivalent. Read context, Leo.
Nader and a host of others have been heaping whatever on Clinton, Gore & Co. for a long time. Or haven't you noticed. There's nothing new here except for 1) the media has paid Nader some attention, perhaps smelling a story of Gore's demise, and 2) More people are paying attention. Indeed, there's a lot of folks like um, me, who know Nader's criticisms and then some, but generally cave-in and vote for the Dems.
I give Henwood & Co. on LBO a lot of credit for making meaningful one fairly simple claim: compare Reagan/Bush to Clinton/Gore and there's not enough difference in principles, policies, or consequences to matter.
It's a debatable point. I can't. The best I can do is resort to my knee-jerk contempt for Republicans. The Democrats have refused to debate it too, beyond assertions about the Supreme Court.
Nader and others have hardly built their opposition on sand (Gore more appropriately has - and thats why he's so fragile). And its not all that strange why anti-Nader folk do the typical political side-step and ignore Nader's central challenge. The record poorly supports an argument in Gore's favor. More importantly, the peace that neoliberal's made with corporate capital and cultural conservatives was never done reluctantly. I mean there's precious little to weave heroic myths of defeat here. Say it ain't so, Leo.
Dennis Breslin