I questioned The Nation's decision not to endorse Kucinich and strongly disagree with its decision to now embrace tainted goods. Vanden Heuvel's rationalisation ducks Klein's and Scahill's point - you don't sway candidates by hugging them, even if it is a qualified embrace.
The message The Nation is sending is, "I don't agree with you but I will vote for you anyway". It should be, "I won't vote for you unless you stand and fight for what I feel are critically important issues". Isn't that the way representative democracy is supposed to work?
What do you call the cynical maneuvering The Nation is practicing? I call it Machiavellian. Do The Nation's editors bother to read their own magazine? I recommend a thorough reading of the New Deal issue.
Kudos to Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill. They are why I subscribe to The Nation but it seems like the same situation one gets into with the MSM - reading it for a couple of good columnists while avoiding corporate editorials.
San Diego, CA
Apr 2 2008 - 8:28am