|
I just wrote this in reply to something else, but it is something that is really bugging me. Some Dean supporters act like Dean is the only person who wouldn't have invaded Iraq, when honestly, the only people it occurred to were the whackjobs in the White House. They also appear to think that since Dean is blunt, he has the monopoly on honesty. I see a lot of Kucinich supporters who write things like "Dennis really cares" and "Dennis is sensitive" like he is the only candidate that does.
Why do supporters think the other guys have to be BAD, so that their guy can be GOOD?
Can't they just be different? Does anybody really think that Dean is a Republican who has been carefully hiding his affiliation for the last 20-odd years and that on the day he is inaugurated, he is going to whip off his shirt and tie and underneath be wearing a big, blue 'R' on his chest? I don't really LIKE the guy and I have some serious concerns about his electability, but he has to be better than Bush, right? Any of them are better than Bush, right? And mostly not because of Bush. But because of the people he has gathered around him. Seems to me that even more important than who the President is, is who he nominates to the positions around him and who is advising him.
I am NOT saying that there should be no preference. Of course you like one candidate more than another. But you can prefer this man without having to act like all the others are assholes. Which makes me start to think that far from being inconsequential as someone has said, electability may be THE most important factor. Any of our guys are going to do better than Bush. But ONLY if they get a chance to do it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
