If Clinton thought Gore would have been the best President ever, why didn’t the Democrats run Al Gore in 2004 to “correct” their mistake? Why isn’t he running this year? Is he no longer capable of being the “best president ever”?
I’ve often said I thought Algore might be VP for Obama. Who knows? He might even suck it up and agree to run with Hildy, just so he can enlarge his greeness from the White House.
That said, the point I take from the article is aimed at all those who think it’s not their problem if they bail on the Republican nominee by not voting or casting a vote for Spongebob.
Right or wrong, the big world out there does not agree with their view and, rather, holds them responsible for handing the election to the other guy. And I think it’s right for those on that path to accept that fact on how they are viewed.
This happens in both parties in every election, and both parties have the same perspective-—the quitters are spoilers and worse.
The parties don’t “get the message.” On the contrary, as seen from this article and many others, the strategy now is to blatantly point out that those associated with the party (even if not actual members) who undermine the party’s goal to win elections are to be-—to put it nicely-—discouraged.
Hildy and Obama both stated more clearly than politicians usually do that those who voted for “x” (in this case Nader) were responsible for “y” (in this case Bush) getting elected. It works the same way on the Republican side.