Hi,

I saw this article yesterday, where the author David Lindorff asserts that Gore (along with Kerry) ran a "spineless campaign".

So, I shot off the response below, and I encourage you to write to him as well. His email adress (from the link above) is: dlindorff@yahoo.com

The feedback email address for counterpunch magazine is counterpunch@counterpunch.org

thanks
Neo

------------------------
My letter to David Lindorff, cced to counterpunch:
------------------------
Subject: Your smearing of Al Gore


Hello Mr. Lindorff,

I have just read your September 29, 2005, article: "Spineless, Tired and Uninspired, What Opposition Party?", on counterpunch online magazine at the link: http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09292005.html

Here is an excerpt from your article:

"You'd think the sorry experience of the last two presidential campaigns, where two Democratic candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry, ran spineless, uninspired campaigns that managed to avoid taking a progressive stand on any critical issue of the day, and predictably went down to defeat, dragging Democrats in Congress down with them, would have been a lesson: political cowardice and wedge issue pandering has no future."

I have a serious objection to your clubbing together Kerry and Gore with your classification of both of their campaigns as having been "spineless". I am not going to defend Kerry's campaign (as I have always had a problem with his pathetic back and forth on Iraq), but I strongly resent your use of this qualification for the Gore campaign.

Especailly since one of the main culprits, IMO, contributing to Gore's loss (as certified) was the "Environmentalists against Gore" movement which was spearheaded by one of the editors of the counterpunch magazine, Mr. Jeffrey St. Clair. The abomination which effectively sabotaged the Gore campaign can be read in its full glory at this link: http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0721-01.htm .

An utterly aggregious claim made in that ridiculously insane missive is this: "Many of our members support Ralph Nader, and others believe that even having George W. Bush in the White House, under the eye of an energized environmental community, will lead to better protection for nature and wildlife than we can expect from Al Gore."

Have you noticed just how effectively their (yours too?) prophesy panned out?

Some 300-600 environmentalists in Florida turning away from Gore because of this inexcusable position of some of that select group of rather well-known environmentalists could have been the deciding factor in that election, where Gore also had fight back from a 12% deficit in 3/99 (WaPo poll released on 3/16/99) stemming mostly from Clinton's amorous escapades, and finally had to succumb to the partisan decision made by the supreme court.

Reading your statement further, may I remind you that Gore was an integral part of the most successful progressive administration since perhaps FDR (sans LBJ with his civil rights enactment), and hence he did not need to bang his drum about being progressive, because he was showing by way of example that he would run a progressive enough administration, with possible continuation of the prosperity of the preceding eight years.

I therefore find your free-for-all trashing of the Gore campaign to be patently unfair, and I strongly request you to retract and/or rephrase your article suitably.

Thanking you.

your sincerely,
Neo

ps: I am "cc"ing this email to counterpunch's feedback email address, so that Mr. Jeffrey St. Clair can respond to my claim regarding his participation in the "EAG" abomination in 2000.

Spineless??? Uninspired??? I get so tired of this crap, all the bashing but we know the truth they both won their elections. Bush rigged and stole both and I will never back down from stating that because it's the truth, despite what all these Bush loving idiots spew out. 2000 was more obvious, but I believe 2004 was stolen, also.