I cannot believe we are still arguing about Nader

[sabrina 1]

42. It helps hide the fact that despite knowing that election was stolen, Democrats

did nothing about it. They not only did nothing about it, they were as vigilant about shutting down any discussion of it as Republicans were. Nader was the scapegoat who was used to distract from the crime that changed the course of history. But why did Democrats allow that to happen?

The real question most of us had then, and in 2004, was why Democrats were so willing to allow the criminals off the hook.

I don't really know why there are still a few people trying to use Nader as a distraction. We know what happened in 2000, too much has been written about it to pretend we do not. And few people who pay any attention whatsoever to politics, view Nader as anything but a footnote to that election.

Gore won that election despite the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted for Bush and despite the cheating, the corruption and the crimes committed to steal it from him. And then when all else failed, the felons on the SC intervened unconstitutionally and handed it to Bush.

Nader did nothing illegal and it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would ascribe more blame to someone who broke no laws, than to the actualy law-breakers. It never made sense and it never will. What it does do is show how if Democrats cannot unite around holding the criminals who stole that election responsible, why we are in the mess we are in.