They are willing to print other points of view. They have even run something I once wrote, and I am certainly no Warren-Sanders fan. Now, I love Katrina like a sister. We have been friends for many years, although she knows perfectly well that our views diverge seriously on many issues (Russia being one of them--she has her contacts there that I don't, I have mine in Washington that she doesn't, even though she has more). By the way, The Nation has been running December cruises to Cuba for many years. No one seemed to get all steamed up over that.
Though she is friends with Elizabeth Warren, Katrina agreed with me (last time we met up, anyway, this was in July) that while she favors Warren, she would probably not be the best candidate for the Democrats to run. This is an objective opinion that runs openly contrary to her personal sentiments. I haven't spoken with her since, so maybe she has changed her mind--and then, again, maybe she is only publishing things she thinks her audience wants to hear. She has quite a few firebrands among her writers and is quite aware of it. Sure, she runs their stuff. But if you have something eloquently phrased that puts forward a progressive-but-not-extreme opposing view, send it to her. She sees material that is sent in, and you might just find yourself published in The Nation. I'm certainly not the first or last "nobody" to have something published there.
By the way, it was at a Nation event in Washington that I asked Barber if he would be willing to speak at the Democratic convention in 2016, and he said though no one had asked him, he'd be willing. So I put in the word with my contacts at the DNC, and lo and behold, he was on the program. By the time the convention was happening, it was clear that Hillary would be the nominee, but you didn't see Barber backing out, did you? It is easy to see absolutes everywhere, but reality, especially in Washington, is rarely as cut and dried as many make it out to be.
= new reply since forum marked as read
