As long as we're commenting on the Nader-Blaming Game...

IF Gore and Clinton and the DLC-corporate-Republicrats hadn't taken the party down the toilet with...

* NAFTA,

* GATT,

* the so-called "reform" of welfare,

* some gratuitous bombing of Iraq,

* enthusiastic support of the death penalty, despite the overwhelming evidence of its racist application.

* the "don't ask don't tell" disaster that has actually led to increased harrassment of gays in the military,

* a huge increase in the prison population, thanks to the Clinton/Gore administration's relentless support for the racist War on Drugs,

* Hillary's pathetic corporate "Managed Competition" plan that crashed and set back the movement or universal health care by at least a decade,

* the so-called "anti-terrorist act" that gave the police state more power,

* a whole lotta money for right-wing Colombian death squads,

* etc, etc, etc,

...THEN Gore would have done what any other Democratic incumbent running against a moronic Republican during relatively peaceful, relatively prosperous times would have done -- WON HIS OWN HOME STATE!

And as long as we're assigning blame, Clinton's sexcapades must have cost the ticket a few thousand votes in Florida. If Ol' Bill could have just kept it zipped for 8 years, his boy Gore would surely have won, right? And how about Gore's dialing-for-dollars and Buddhist Temple shennanigans? Even if you write these events off as "everyone does it," don't you think that it probably cost Gore votes in Florida, just as Clinton's shortcomings and the whole laundry list of treacheries listed above cost him votes?

As information consumers, sorters and processers, we can choose from among plenty of potential scapegoats to blame for Bush's election, but the one that's been fed to people non-stop through the media, is that Ralph Nader. So why are Democrats being urged to demonize Nader, and not blame Clinton, or the DLC, or Gore and Lieberman themselves?