Via OccupyPhoenix

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Comments

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

You can go on and on all you like about all of Obama's failures. I completely agree with you on every account. In my 54 years on earth I have never seen a president, Democratic or Republican keep all his promises. It's one thing to say it on the campaign trail; it's another thing to make it happen with a Repubican dominated House. However, that doesn't in the least change the facts regarding the clear policy differences between the two parties. Had Obama not been elected, there would be no repeal of DADT, abortion would probably have been outlawed, there would be no health care reform guaranteeing coverage despite pre-existing conditions and eliminating lifetime caps, and more tax cuts would have been given to the rich. You can scream about Obama and the Dems until the cows come home, but that's not gonna make me vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, and will only guarantee a Republican victory.

Name one.

Here you go:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-11/politics/palmbeach.recount_1_gore-buchanan-gore-and-reform-party-butterfly-ballot?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0111a/copyright/bushlostrecount.html

http://www.issues2000.org/Florida_Recount_Official.htm

I'll add to this that the controversy continues, for the very reasons pointed out in the second and third links. So we can never be completely sure who won.

But go on, keep blaming Nader.
After I mentioned several other factors that led to Gore losing the election, you're still claiming that I I solely blame Nader for the loss. Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I do believe he played an important part in drawing votes away from Gore, but I by no means believe he was the only factor in Gore's loss, as you suggest.