2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: The attempted destruction of two US civil rights icons recalls to mind the Cultural Revolution. [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that have helped us get things like customer saving measures like seat belts, etc. over the years.
Does that mean he was immune from criticism when he ran for president for the Greens? Hell no! Probably many here who would like to put up other icons as untouchable for any kind of critique such as Dolores Huerta, John Lewis, etc. when they've supported Clinton would be the first ones in many cases calling Nader evil.
If Nader were to endorse Clinton, then suddenly he would be a hero to them, and if he were to endorse Bernie, then he would be another subject to even more current critique.
I personally regard a lot of these people like Huerta, Lewis, Nader, etc. as heroes for what they've done in their lives. But as others have noted, they are all human beings, and have made mistakes. Sometimes a bit unfairly criticized for their mistakes, but sometimes being protected too much when they should have some degree of criticism too.
Nader I think could have run better as an independent candidate and perhaps run as a one issue candidate to do Instant Runoff Voting, which would allow third parties to better compete for office in the future without being spoilers. But most don't criticize him for that. But I will always be thankful for what he's done to make this country a safer place and the many lives he's saved in doing so.
Huerta and Lewis I have enormous respect for them and their efforts in civil rights, that many benefit from today. But by endorsing a candidate and even with subtlety putting forth comments that can be interpreted as falsely characterizing the other candidate, owe it to us to correct mistakes they may have made if they later feel that they've misspoke. Both Huerta and Lewis have provided later statements to walk back some of their initial statements, which I can respect. I can also respect that as human beings, they might not have been as in command the message of what they provide us on every topic.
Personally, I think we are getting too sidetracked with these discussions on who's wrong and who's not in either the initial statements or who is lying or who is correcting who. I think that is by design by those behind the scenes that want us distracted from the real issues of this election, that if we spent more time on, we'd have a lot more unity on, and would demand more from our candidates to address them, and help us decide to put in power the right person that has the best answers in addressing them.
Let's not lose track of getting the best person in charge who will fix these problems. I personally feel Bernie is that person, but I'm open to conversations from others who can make a case for a different person too, if it is based on the issues, and not just on personal smears, etc. that try to keep us from looking at those issues as criteria.