Brad DeLong has a nice post comparing Ehrenreich in 2000 and 2004. I’m always amused to be reminded some classic Naderite tropes, such as the fact that a conservative justice happened to vote to uphold Roe means that it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House as far as the federal courts are concerned. I mean, Scalia, Ginsburg, tomato, tomahto. (Although to get full crackpot points you have to point out that William Brennan was appointed by a Republican. Since nothing about the Republican Party has changed since 1955, I find that very comforting!) It’s also true, as DeLong implies, that nothing significant has changed between 2000 and 2004. It was obvious that Bush was extremely reactionary in 2000 to everyone but 1)Naderites, and 2)good-guy centrist liberal pundits. Movement conservatives certainly knew exactly what they were getting. But, having said that, I’m also happy to welcome anyone aboard.
I’m also stunned that two of the smartest bloggers out there actually seem to think that Ehrenreich really thinks that Kucinich can win the nomination. I mean, I know it’s unusual to see any semblance of wit on the NYT op-ed page (and, to be clear, the attempted wit of David Brooks certainly doesn’t count), but come on. It’s a joke. If she comes out against Kerry after the convention, then pile on all you like, but she won’t. And I yield in nobody on the left in my ability to get creeped out by the elfish vegan, but don’t we need to encourage that sector of the left to keep the fights within the party? Kucinich supporters who vote Kerry get a pass from me.