glacierman @ 146

I do feel we owe Gitlin’s book a read and I welcome the exchange, thanks FDL, but I’m revolted by the black and white reading of American politics that says you’re either Repugnican or Democrat and that’s it. Easy to say post 2000, but no Dem or liberal or progressive was prepared for what the Rove-Cheney-Bolton thug crew threw at the recount, except maybe a few vote traders. The Nader doc was a refreshing re-view of the 2000 debacle, Democrat refusal to allow Nader into the debates, and if anyone should have had the research together to prepare for the Florida trainwreck it shoulda been the well funded DLC and party machine. That’s the tragic error of 2000 in my book but Gitlin and the Nation want to write history to blame one man rather than an entire institution that was asleep. We are doomed by our mutually assured self-righteousnesses, Professor.

Glacierman, Thank you suggesting the book ought to be read sooner than judging my whole political world view on the basis of a few quotes in a film made by a credulous Nader supporter! I am light-years away from blaming the Dem debacle of 2000 on a single man. Light-years. Btw no faction of the Democrats distinguished itself for acumen in 2000–not the DLC but not the liberals either, and certainly not Al Gore. Let this sound a bit self-serving, but when I helped organize a demo at the NYC Federal Building on the Monday after election day, 2000, to support the radical principle of counting every vote, a grand total of maybe 250-300 people turned out.

What galls me about Nader supporters, for their part, is that they insist that their hands are utterly, spic-&-span clean. The fact that their hero was exultant the morning after the long cont began–exultant!--is for them no sign that he was motivated primarily by a vengeful desire to punish the Democrats.

There are no clean hands in politics. None. What there is is judgment, good and bad.

I appreciate the reply. So how do we make more effective protest of election fraud next time? We (the left) blew it in 2000 and in 2004, even as it was the Democratic Party’s main error (and the roll over and play dead response of both Gore and Kerry). Who will lead the rapid response team? The idea of Unions has come up, with General Strike as a possibility, but it’s got to be well prepared as a scenario. You’ll lead the University march?

“We’ve got new generals our leaders are new
They sit and they argue and all that they do
Is sell their own colleagues and ride upon their backs
And jail them and break them and give them all the axe
Screaming in language that no one understands
Of the rights that we grabbed with our own bleeding hands “

I love the old standards, don’t you?

I do feel we owe Gitlin’s book a read and I welcome the exchange, thanks FDL, but I’m revolted by the black and white reading of American politics that says you’re either Repugnican or Democrat and that’s it. Easy to say post 2000, but no Dem or liberal or progressive was prepared for what the Rove-Cheney-Bolton thug crew threw at the recount, except maybe a few vote traders. The Nader doc was a refreshing re-view of the 2000 debacle, Democrat refusal to allow Nader into the debates, and if anyone should have had the research together to prepare for the Florida trainwreck it shoulda been the well funded DLC and party machine. That’s the tragic error of 2000 in my book but Gitlin and the Nation want to write history to blame one man rather than an entire institution that was asleep. We are doomed by our mutually assured self-righteousnesses, Professor.

Glacierman, Thank you suggesting the book ought to be read sooner than judging my whole political world view on the basis of a few quotes in a film made by a credulous Nader supporter! I am light-years away from blaming the Dem debacle of 2000 on a single man. Light-years. Btw no faction of the Democrats distinguished itself for acumen in 2000–not the DLC but not the liberals either, and certainly not Al Gore. Let this sound a bit self-serving, but when I helped organize a demo at the NYC Federal Building on the Monday after election day, 2000, to support the radical principle of counting every vote, a grand total of maybe 250-300 people turned out.

What galls me about Nader supporters, for their part, is that they insist that their hands are utterly, spic-&-span clean. The fact that their hero was exultant the morning after the long cont began–exultant!--is for them no sign that he was motivated primarily by a vengeful desire to punish the Democrats.

There are no clean hands in politics. None. What there is is judgment, good and bad.

Todd Gitlin @ 142

After all the nice comments, for which I’m devoutly grateful, I do think a bit more is called for in response to kittykitty.

It’s true that the pressure of this format leaves out all kinds of tonal nuance. That said, there is a genuine disagreement here, and I think I have logic and evidence on my side. The study cited in the pro-Nader film “Unreasonable Man,” arguing that Nader didn’t set out to win Democratic votes, is not convincing. So the self-righteousness of those who repeat this claim without checking it carefully is self-righteousness; it is, all too frequently, impervious to argument; it holds itself all-too-holy.

Not being saintly, I’ve made mistakes. Perhaps kittykitty has as well. I do not like the implication that I’ve made my mistakes because my conscience is deficient. Nor do I like the implication that arguments are unnecessary when the self-righteous claim they have good conscience on their side. Why do those who purport to be all right, all the time, get a pass? Is there not enough sanctimoniousness to go around?

Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter? I apologize for putting you on the spot with that, but your answer to that question locates you, in many respects, politically. I also think your political ideas and prescriptions would be far more interesting to discuss in relation to Hillary Clinton and her voting record.

Perfectly reasonable to ask if I’m supporting HC, and the answer is, I don’t yet know. On domestic and environmental policy, I don’t see huge differences among the three leading candidates, and am inclined to give her the tie-breaker on account of her very impressive experience. On foreign and military policy, her presidency would, in the eyes of much of the world, automatically signal a repudiation of the Bush catastrophe, and her standing in global feminism would be a great encouragement to women’s movements everywhere. On this score, she’s the champion. But on questions of preventive war and the surfeit of military spending, her record is mixed and I don’t yet know where her bedrock commitments are. Her rhetorical gestures go every which way. I’m concerned.

john in sacramento @ 128

I’ve been kind of laying in the weeds for the afternoon doing other things, and I could be getting the tone wrong, but many answers or responses seem to have a patronizing tone, like the one above.

May I suggest a book for you Mr. Gitlin?

How to win friends and influence people

After all the nice comments, for which I’m devoutly grateful, I do think a bit more is called for in response to kittykitty.

It’s true that the pressure of this format leaves out all kinds of tonal nuance. That said, there is a genuine disagreement here, and I think I have logic and evidence on my side. The study cited in the pro-Nader film “Unreasonable Man,” arguing that Nader didn’t set out to win Democratic votes, is not convincing. So the self-righteousness of those who repeat this claim without checking it carefully is self-righteousness; it is, all too frequently, impervious to argument; it holds itself all-too-holy.

Not being saintly, I’ve made mistakes. Perhaps kittykitty has as well. I do not like the implication that I’ve made my mistakes because my conscience is deficient. Nor do I like the implication that arguments are unnecessary when the self-righteous claim they have good conscience on their side. Why do those who purport to be all right, all the time, get a pass? Is there not enough sanctimoniousness to go around?

I forgot to add in my last response that I have reservations about Hillary Clinton and her voting record. It would go a long way for me toward supporting her if her aides and supporters were willing to discuss her and her record, particularly if they supported her strongly.

john in sacramento @ 128

I’ve been kind of laying in the weeds for the afternoon doing other things, and I could be getting the tone wrong, but many answers or responses seem to have a patronizing tone, like the one above.

May I suggest a book for you Mr. Gitlin?

How to win friends and influence people

After all the nice comments, for which I’m devoutly grateful, I do think a bit more is called for in response to kittykitty.

It’s true that the pressure of this format leaves out all kinds of tonal nuance. That said, there is a genuine disagreement here, and I think I have logic and evidence on my side. The study cited in the pro-Nader film “Unreasonable Man,” arguing that Nader didn’t set out to win Democratic votes, is not convincing. So the self-righteousness of those who repeat this claim without checking it carefully is self-righteousness; it is, all too frequently, impervious to argument; it holds itself all-too-holy.

Not being saintly, I’ve made mistakes. Perhaps kittykitty has as well. I do not like the implication that I’ve made my mistakes because my conscience is deficient. Nor do I like the implication that arguments are unnecessary when the self-righteous claim they have good conscience on their side. Why do those who purport to be all right, all the time, get a pass? Is there not enough sanctimoniousness to go around?

Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter? I apologize for putting you on the spot with that, but your answer to that question locates you, in many respects, politically. I also think your political ideas and prescriptions would be far more interesting to discuss in relation to Hillary Clinton and her voting record.

Todd Gitlin @ 116

Nice if you can wash your hands so spic-&-span. Is your conscience happy with Nader’s campaigns?

I’ve been kind of laying in the weeds for the afternoon doing other things, and I could be getting the tone wrong, but many answers or responses seem to have a patronizing tone, like the one above.

May I suggest a book for you Mr. Gitlin?

How to win friends and influence people

After all the nice comments, for which I’m devoutly grateful, I do think a bit more is called for in response to kittykitty.

It’s true that the pressure of this format leaves out all kinds of tonal nuance. That said, there is a genuine disagreement here, and I think I have logic and evidence on my side. The study cited in the pro-Nader film “Unreasonable Man,” arguing that Nader didn’t set out to win Democratic votes, is not convincing. So the self-righteousness of those who repeat this claim without checking it carefully is self-righteousness; it is, all too frequently, impervious to argument; it holds itself all-too-holy.

Not being saintly, I’ve made mistakes. Perhaps kittykitty has as well. I do not like the implication that I’ve made my mistakes because my conscience is deficient. Nor do I like the implication that arguments are unnecessary when the self-righteous claim they have good conscience on their side. Why do those who purport to be all right, all the time, get a pass? Is there not enough sanctimoniousness to go around?

R’s are against livable wages.

only for 96% of the people