RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL SON
Welcome back, Stuart Klawans [“Film,” Jan. 28]. I don’t know where you’ve been, but I’ve missed you. With the issue that arrived in today’s mail, I’ve resumed reading The Nation from back to front.
VOTE YOUR HEART OUT
Our January 7/14 “Election ’08” editorial outlining the strengths (and weaknesses) of the Democratic candidates but not making an endorsement drew sighs from a trickle of Edwards and Obama supporters and howls from a tsunami of Kucinich loyalists, who flung epithets like “cowards!,” “sell-out,” “weak,” “shame on you,” “cowardly surrender.” They opined that we were “duped and cowed,” “setting a bad example” and “behaving like the MSM.” Some readers found the editorial to their liking. –The Editors
Kudos for endorsing a progressive movement instead of an individual candidate! A group of progressives held a “Caucus of the Future: Direct Democracy in Action” in Des Moines on January 2-3. It’s about building a movement independent of the political parties (more info at Iowa Counter-Caucus).
Gig Harbor, Wash.
The most balanced and perceptive piece on the election I’ve seen. Your emphasizing the need “to build the public support vital…for capturing the opportunity to transform the country” is paramount.
The Nation‘s well-thought-out editorial on this incredibly important election season includes some bracing statements for the birth of a “progressive insurgency.” But you decline to make an endorsement. It seems to me that a more forthright stance is called for, especially in light of the powerful language you’ve chosen: “historic opportunity,” “ferment in the air,” “yearning for change,” “resuscitation of America’s most inspired dreams of justice and equality” and “the kindling is in place.” Why not just come out of your cautious shell and endorse a candidate? One more thing: why the cover portrait of the two mainstream media darlings when, I would wager, many readers are fed up with being force-fed those two?