General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat [View all]Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bush won because Gore was obsessed with not looking "liberal" oh, and there was the boredom factor, too).
There was simply no excuse for the party to nominate a "status quo" candidate in 2000. We needed a clean break with the Clinton stagnation. Bland centrism had run its course and, even if the liberal wing of the party HAD been to blame for the defeats of the Seventies and Eighties(clearly, it wasn't and Clinton-type candidates would also have got creamed in all those races), the liberals had been punished enough.
Why the hell did we run a "change nothing, challenge nothing" race in 2000? Why did anybody think that made sense?
A people's campaign that year would have forced Ralph out of the race and we'd have held all the votes Gore did get anyway.
The fact that Gore instantly wiped out Bush's lead when he used the "the people, not the powerful" line(and then instantly let Bush back into the lead when he made it clear he'd never talk like that again)bears me out on this.
Yes, Ralph's a jerk, but it's time to admit it wasn't all his fault...that this party itself shares blame for that result. Why refuse to admit that? Why insist on reducing the whole thing to "they should have done what we damn well told them to do"?
A party that wants to improve its standing learns from reality. Those that still reduce the meaning of 2000 to "Fuck Nader!" are refusing to learn and refusing to grow. They are actually working AGAINST the interests of this party.