yes, this works for me. after dean went down, i fell into the edwards camp and i'm satisfied with this pick.
i do have some concerns though, mostly based on anecdotal evidence. i've spoken to many people in the medical community and for the most part they do not like edwards. this includes many bush2K voters who do not intend to vote bush this year.
has anyone else heard anything like this from their doctors?
you know, i'd heard about the potential floor fight to nominate dean as veep. apparently 300 signatures are required to put the motion up and they've already been secured.
when i first heard about this, i thought you know, it's probably a bad idea. we want unity at the convention blah blah blah.
but now... if it's gep, i say bring on the floor fight. if it's gep, it's a big "go cheney yourselves" to all the new people who joined the activist ranks this year on behalf of dean, clark, and others. it's the shrum dem establishment basically telling us "what are you gonna do - vote for bush?"
and i would not be suprised if there was a "fall on your sword" deal in iowa. i'm so damned jaded now that it ust wouldn't suprise me.
my god, i just hope this is RUMOR and not fact. if it's fact, i'm all for a floor fight.
jeebus, kerry/gep = dole/kemp. and you know what? if that ticket loses, maybe it'll finally put to rest the old guard of the party. fuck 'em. fuck 'em all if they do this to us.
to be honest, this would absolutely push me into camp nader (with caveat: i live in a solidly red state).
you know, i feel that we have to go protest if we can, contrary to what bobcarp says above.
look, we've been protesting this guy for three years now and we've yet to get the kind of fair coverage we deserve. the protests in nyc are going to be huge, and since the media (or at least some of them) are finally off the reservation, i think there's a chance that we might get some fair coverage.
if nothing else, i want everyone in the world to know that many americans are dissatisfied and disgusted with bush lack of leadership.
i actually decided that instead of getting a blogger pass to the dnc convention, i'd go to new york instead. i feel in my bones that that is where i need to be in august.
disagree if you must, but i do feel we need to be there.
chris, you and i are very close to the same age. i was 7 when reagan took office the first time, and cast my first presidential vote for clinton in 92 when i was 19. i share many of your disappointments with clinton (and actually voted for the ticket because i have always adored al gore - when clinton picked him that sealed it for me), but i think we need to add a little perspective here.
first of all, remember what happened in 1994? gingrich and the republican congress. from that moment on, bill clinton was hamstrung and unable to get anything done. he had to break a ton of campaign promises (such as gays openly serving in the military, instituting national health care, and lowering college tuition costs) because republicans would not let him get anything done. we need to take that into account when assessing clinton's presidency. i give him a bit of leeway considering the circumstances under which he was working.
during his second term, the GOP was out to take him down any way they could, and we wasted $75 million dollars and two years talking about cigars and interns. and that was the GOP's fault as well. never forget what they did to clinton. clinton had to be the great compromiser because he wouldn't have been able to govern if he wasn't.
i'm just saying this for historical accuracy.
as for kerry... sigh i am thoroughly disappointed with the prospects of a kerry presidency. but i'll tell you something - at least with kerry we will have a chance. with bush we have nothing. we on the political left need to hold kerry's feet to the fire and make him keep his promises, IMO. i think deep inside, kerry is a good man of the left. but i think he's become overly cautious after all his years in washington, and he's not the bold young man he once was. we see this in some of his positions (such as "staying the course" in iraq for example).
i have no illusions as to what a kerry presidency would bring. it would simply stop the bleeding here at home. i don't expect a change in foreign policy, and due to that i'm considering casting a protest vote for nader here in texas (hey, at least i won't be throwing the election to bush). frag, i dunno. i'm just so damned disappointed with the race this year. we got the "safe" pick for pres and we'll probably get a safer (edwards) pick for vp, ushering in what looks to be 16 years of centrist, wishy washy, compromising leadership.
but i still think that's better than the alternative, which is four more years of shrub and then 8 of jeb(!).
Immorality is the gangrene of the war in Iraq and manifests itself in wild political assertions; not just torture. As Marines and Iraqis were dying in Fallujah, President Bush was on television telling his constituents "most of Fallujah has returned to normal." Our failed morality at Abu Ghraib cannot prevent Donald Rumsfeld from being described as a "superb" secretary of defense or inhibit Blair from his unwavering commitment to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush. A beheading is repositioned as an independent act of evil rather than retribution for our own moral collapse. Everything is opinion; nothing is fact. This is the most insidious form of immorality.
but try making that argument to a die hard bush supporter. what consistently astounds me is the level of denial and righteousness they are able to work up in support of their little ceasar.
i've slept since i last studied roman history; do you know if romans of the day were equally deluded?
i truly think it's going to take something politically catastrophic for bush supporters to finally make that final leap into cognitive dissonance. as if the testaments of people like oneill and clarke weren't enough already... who will be our brutus?(1)
anyway - excellent find.
(1) secret service prophylactic: i am not advocating doing physical harm to our current president
...i've resigned myself to the fact that we're never going to know -exactly- what those guys' motives were. because of this, i'm not going to judge them, even if they worked for an e-vile corporation like blackwater. i mourn their deaths, but i mourn all deaths from war equally.
i was disgusted by kos's remarks, and chastised him at the time. but i also understand - especially after he fleshed out his point of view - how he could have reacted as he did. my life experiences led me to react with sadness to those deaths (as i do to all the ones i read about vis a vis bush's war on iraq). i'm sure each and every one of us had a very individualised reaction to those deaths which led us to express ourselves in a certain way (be it sadness, anger, despair, etc). and that emotion is expressed individually as well. for the wingnuts to call kos unpatriotic for having a genuinely human reaction is sad. i feel pity for those who don't have the empathy to step into his shoes.
and this name-calling, this "unpatriotic" smear crap, is simply ridiculous. i mean come on, it's not like he outed a cia agent or tried to cut our troops combat pay...