come on, you're smart, i've read lots that you've written. the possibility that it wasn't rival campaigns at least in part is as close to zero as you can get. this seems like more of the double standard that appears prominently in these pie fights. inter-party fights have one very loose standard and intra-party fights require a ridiculous level of proof. or no proof, i suppose, depending on one's side of the argument.
i almost wish the bloggers i read regularly would stop posting on the primary campaign and the candidates. because every single time it turns into a third grade argument about who's the bigger doo-doo head. it should be embarrassing. too bad it's not.
like the other person that replied to you said, she should be honest. i would amplify on that and say in addition to saying who the sticking points are, she should just flat out say, "the country elected democrats to end the iraq war. we cannot and will not do that."
instead she's blowing smoke up our asses. come on, she quite literally said, it "depends" when it comes to next steps. that's called following, not leading. ditch decorum and %$#%$#%$#$%ing fight. jesus christ, indeed.
well, you're right and wrong. yes, by definition an apology is an apology.
but say i tripped you and you fell. and then say i apologized for the ground being so hard. that's an apology. sure, it's not an apology for what i did wrong, but by your math that's not important because the word "apologize" in any context is enough.
and the issue of the fake apology is important in our public discourse. the reason is because so many people pull the sorry-for-the-ground-being-so-hard apology routine and people like you think, "hey, what a great guy, he apologized," when he did nothing of the sort. that allows the offense to stay out there and allows the speaker to weasel out.
geez, get defensive much? how on earth does that comment translate to accusations of racism? that's your southerner complex where you feel you constantly have to defend yourself against us elitist yanks. stop it. we don't actually think you're all racist. stop with the geographic stereotypes (wait - where have i heard that sentiment before?) i'm sorry you're touchy about it, but that ain't our fault.
i'm also sorry you, "mudcat" and those other real americans down in the south don't like the opera, it's pretty beautiful. and guess what - i'm one of those rural people too and i can still appreciate the opera, lattes, volvos and sushi while simultaneously being an authentic, christian, rural white dude. my only problem is that i'm not from south of the mason dixon line.
and that's the problem with this crap he's spewing. he's staking his flag in this mythical rural south where it's simply ludicrous to enjoy opera, where people from metropolitan areas are worthy of contempt. so much so that the very label "metropolitan" is itself an insult. and he's saying that that place, that ideal is the only viable ideal and that everyone else can go to hell.
to the "geez, what's the big deal" crowd, i'd say this: when someone tells you to go to hell, calls you a psuedo intellectual and so on, them's fightin words, so to speak. sure, if it was me saying it on my no traffic blog, then who cares. but when a supposedly big time dem consultant advising a top tier presidential candidate uses Time Magazine to attack a group of people he so clearly doesn't understand and without citing anything more than stereotypes, then there's gonna be some push back. and when that group of people happens to be the only group that prefers his candidate over the others, that makes it stupid. so stupid that it begs the question, this guy advises politicians????
yeah, it's a small fight. but people in the blogosphere have been bashing their heads into the wall for years now screaming for dems to fight back when attacked. well, here ya go.
riiiiight, because most bloggers have a hard time stating their real criticisms and go looking for surrogates to attack as proxies for their real target. if only people in the blogosphere would just say what's on their minds!!!
wow, look at all the mudcat loving concern trolls.
(and if you're thinking, "who the hell is he calling a concern troll?? he didn't specify any concern trolls or comments that could be considered concern-trollish," well then i'd say now you understand the problem. sorry if you got upset about me calling you a concern troll. but hey, i mouth off all the time and what can i do about it if you get upset?)
i don't really see how this is a great wedge issue. within the conservative coalition, the non-theocons tend to be pretty pragmatic. they may find the theocon issues silly or even embarrassing, but they recognize that a) indulging theocons is necessary to win elections, and b) they'll have no problem living their own lifestyles no matter how kinky or perverted they are, so who cares what laws the theocons get passed?