1. Wow. That typo is scandalous. I actually see typos like that all the time while browsing Yahoo and MSNBC news articles. It’s rather alarming, isn’t it?

    As an experienced journalist, I understand the pressure to post the latest breaking news stories out there as quickly as possible, but really – what’s another thirty seconds for a quick spell-check?

    In addition, I believe that no matter how good a point a writer makes in an article, said point will be completely overshadowed and disregarded if it’s relayed via poor and/or sloppy writing. Case and point: I was so up in arms about the Nader writer’s typo, I didn’t bother focusing on anything else he/she had to say.

    P.S. I hypothesize that Obama is going to be our next President. Hilary’s numbers have been dismal as of late (not to mention she’s been losing her most supportive demographics), and I don’t think the American public is going to vote for another Republican. Furthermore, Obama has charisma (as you mentioned) and communication skills that Hilary just doesn’t have, and I think there’s a lot to be said for that.

  2. The first thing I heard when I woke up today was that Nader was running, and I believe my exact reaction was, “Oh, for fuck’s sake.”

    Which is how I feel about the media, too.

    I am so over their treatment of this election, and I am so over all the crap that’s being spewed here, there, and everywhere. It’s time to actually talk about issues that matter–not whether or not some politician used someone else’s words (what politician DOESN’T?).

    Gobama!

    (Heh).

  3. JUSTME

    First of all, welcome back!! It is a wonderful thing, to see you writing and posting blogs again! What you posted above, is a MAJOR typo…I wonder who proofreads those before they go to press? That sure is a sloppy error though. It isn’t like a small missing comma, or one letter missed–it’s a whole repeated paragraph! Most scandalous!! LOL

    As for the whole political arena, I have to admit that over the years, I have come to literally dread presidential election years. The whole spin-doctoring movement, the slinging of insults and digging up and tossing dirt…it is just plain tiresome.

    I don’t believe that Nader cost Gore the election. I believe that the people who actually got out and voted, voted for their candidate of choice. To say that Nader cost Gore the election, makes the assumption that Gore would have had those votes that Nader gained, which is a major assumption on anyones part. Just because a person happened to vote for one candidate, doesn’t mean that their “default” vote, had that candidate not been included, would have gone to any other particular person. What was Nader then? The lesser of all the other evils? Not neccessarily. Maybe if Nader had not been running, that person might not have voted at all. You cannot assume anything. Personally, I believe Gore lost the election because it came down to his showing as VP in the prior administration. Many did not find his presence strong enough to represent our country as President. That whole election year was really just a lot of poor choices offered overall, in my opinion. Bush did step up well for the 9/11 crises though.

    For this year, it is hard to say. Obama is very charismatic. Hillary, she is a mixed ticket. Many want to see a female president. Many respect her as a strong woman…but I feel that people look to the spouses too. They hold influence…and some people do not want a repeat “Clinton” administration either. If the vote is for change, which I feel it will come down to be, then I expect to see entirely different faces on the front running…Obama and McCain.
    No matter who wins in the end, there will always be things that we disagree with–I wouldn’t wish the job of President on my worst enemy…you just can’t win or make everyone happy, no matter what you do. Kudos to any of them for risking to try.

    Once again, welcome back! I have always enjoyed reading your thought-provoking commentaries.

  4. @Kristen: I know, right? I thought it was crazy. I had to do a screencap just in case they caught it and edited it.

    @JustMe: Thanks for the welcome, and I totally agree that it can get tiresome. Myself, I’ve instituted a solely active approach; I don’t watch television, rarely go to movies, and don’t read the newspaper. Everything I find out, I generally have to actively seek out (this Nader story being an exception, of course, as MSNBC is my homepage. That may soon change, though).

  5. The line came from the AP, you’re right. I saw it in a couple of other places, including an AP article in the Wall Street Journal, and an op-ed piece.

    One thing that might have happened, however, is the writer of the MSNBC article had posted it in one place, and instead of cut-and-paste, copied-and-pasted into a different place and forgot to delete the original placement. I’ve seen that happen frequently, as I am sure you have.

    I take solace in numbers I gleaned from the Wall Street Journal:

    2000 election: Nader took 2.7% of the vote
    2004 election: Nader took 0.3% of the vote
    2008 election: Nader will take less than 0.1% of the vote

    The Democrats have nothing to worry about. People are really sick of Nader.

    There’s this, too:

    Nader ran on the Green Party ticket in 2000 and 2004. Someone else is running no the Green Party ticket this election. He has to do this on his own. Between getting enough signatures and footing the bill himself, he’s not going to be on many states’ ballots in November.

Comments are closed.