Nathan Newman wrote:
>And again I note that people on this list then mostly thought Gore was
>inevitable
-With a strong economy and a high approval rating for Clinton, Gore -should have won big, He blew it, though it's a lot more convenient to -blame Nader.
And I was the first person to state he was such a lousy candidate that he could lose despite those advantages. And noted that this was a reason for Nader not to be campaigning in the swing states since he could throw the election to Bush.
The two issues are not exclusive-- Gore was a lousy candidate AND Nader helped throw the election to Bush.
Given that I argued exactly both points in August 2000 and won a very nice book from Seth making that combined argument, I feel quite comfortable continuing to blame Nader for ushering in the last three years of rightwing rule. Dealing with the inadequacies of liberals is part of the strategic landscape that radicals have to take into account; Nader and his supporters failed to do so and helped usher in Bush's wars, union-busting and giveaways to the wealthy.
-- Nathan Newman