Here is my piece on the Lieberman event Sunday.
More on why the Democrats lose
Another example of why the leadership within the Democratic Party doesn't get it: ["Young Democrats' vision"].
So how is the Democratic Party responding to the fresh ideas, fresh enthusiasm and fresh money coming into the process? By scorning them -- and by fearing, rather than cultivating, them. Talk about being in the political wilderness.And if they aren't doing that, they are using people and then spitting them out. And they wonder why people are so dissolussioned.
Where's George?
Pretty interesting piece on Bush ignoring the primaries: ["Where's George? Bush a no-show for primaries"]. Of course, Skalka had to blame Nader:
Though Bush ultimately did win the state that fall, he did so with the help of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, who may have siphoned support from Democrat Al Gore. In fact, Nader's votes could have made the difference for the Republicans. And depending on how the wacky 2000 race is sized up for history, New Hampshire's four electoral votes made the difference for Bush nationally. When Florida's chads were finally counted, Bush beat Gore by precisely four electoral votes.Skalka ignores exit polling data which showed that Nader took more votes from Republicans than Democrats in New Hampshire, by a two-to-one margin. Nader also received the support of seven municipal elected officials, all Republicans, including the mayor of Rochester, N.H. She ignores CNN’s polling which showed that if both Nader and Pat Buchanan had not run, the results in New Hampshire would have been the same: Bush 48 percent, Gore 47 percent and 4 percent not voting. The UNH Survey Center also did a post election analysis which showed that Nader’s support was evenly split down the middle between Bush and Gore. But hey, why look at figures when you are busy figuring?
Bush's Sept. 11 follies ...
"Bin Laden family's US exit 'approved'"
"Iraq Chaos May Cloud Bush's Sept. 11 Legacy"
