>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/17/04 7:30 AM >>> At 10:20 PM -0500 3/16/04, Michael Hoover wrote: >geez, nader could draw 2 activists and he'd top what i'd draw Well, you look adorable in a prequel to _The Blair Witch Project_. :->
At 10:20 PM -0500 3/16/04, Michael Hoover wrote: >but do activists really need to hear him, seems to me that >non-activists need to hear him (i'd rather they heard folks >mentioned above, and you as well)... First of all, Greens need to hear Nader, to rediscover their spine. It seems that they are. Yoshie <<<<<>>>>> shhhhh re. bwp... wouldn't think greens would have lost spine just yet, if so, they're already on way out... 2000 polls indicated that majority of folks thought media did not give minor party candidates adequate coverage, same bound to be case this year, possible exception may be nader who (and here is conspiracy theory) media will pay attention to if it looks like he mght 'spoil' (soil?) things for kerry, in fact, media will contribute to that happening as 'it' (they?) prefers bush... above circumstance not necessarily ideological (although it is for some), rather, media has not tired of bush yet... right-wing likes to make big deal of poll indicating that large majority of reporters voted for clinton in 92 as if that is, in and of itself, indication of liberalism... in any event, we know clinton's 'liberalism' wasn't new deal/great society sort... part of media vote for clinton was generational thing... part of it was not wanting to continue to cover the same guys that they'd been covering for 12 years of reagan/bush 1... michael hoover
