Our shining example: New York Newsday columnist Marie Cocco, who penned a great column about how Al Gore's speech in New York last week contained a lot more truth than almost three years of the Bush cartel. She also reluctantly admitted his running in 2004 will save us all a lot of smearing of Gore by the press.
My political ally Russ DiBello in NYC fired off a letter to Ms. Cocco, saying in part,
I couldn't ignore the pangs of frustration, when you said, "Fortunate, because we will be spared Gore-bashing as a substitute for serious coverage".
In the late '90's, having endured an Administration-and-a-half of gratuitous Clinton-bashing, and even before the Lewinsky affair, I was walking around saying that when it came time for Al Gore to run for President in 2000, that Bill Clinton would no longer be Satan. Al Gore would suddenly be Satan.
As the campaign of 2000 got underway, the Right and Big Media all got on message, and stayed there for the duration: Al Gore is an annoying Liar.
Moments before I read your column this morning, I saw an article in Ad Week, which asserted that backing off when attacked, so as not to attract the further wrath of the Right, is what actually cost the Democrats the 2002 election. You may agree or not, but again, are they wrong about the results?
In short, I really can't bring myself to feel your relief when one of our few noble fighters feels he has to retire, due to the perception that anyone the Right attacks automatically becomes a liability. Thanks for your time, and please continue the great writing.
Here's the part where the skies begin to open up and the angels sing: Cocco's succinct reply...
I don't think anyone will back off this time. Democrats I talk to are angry and energized, even the establishment types here in DC.
Newsday Washington Bureau
So while we may not need to do too much holding of their feet to the fire, it's nice to know they're probably receptive to it if we stay on 'em. Don't ever let up. Don't ever give up.