|
I know Sanders is a SOCIALIST, AND I also know exactly WHAT Feingold said!! And I know that hints have been made that he feels the same way as Feingold does. At least Sanders is willing to call himself a Socialist, I'll give him that much. However, thinking that people don't change is a bit ludicrous to me.
I knew very little of John Edwards in '04 and had some reservations back then. I was "more" Howard Dean, but look what THEY did to him! There have been many first time "novice" Senators and Representatives that could have gotten swept up in the rarefied air of Congress. Some who honestly believed the "old coots" had real knowledge and wanted to be part of becoming one of those leaders. How many of those Senators are STILL making mistakes??? I don't really want to attack Obama, but we will NEVER know for sure "how" he would have voted on Iraq. He seems to keep voting for it's funding. And what about Clinton's oh, so recent faux explanation about what SHE "thought" she was voting for?? This doesn't seem to be a problem with Feingold now does it? If I didn't know better by the way the people in D.C. are acting when it comes to Edwards, I might think there's a dead body up there somewhere and everyone KNOWS John Edwards buried it somewhere.
The John Edwards I see now, IS NOT the same person he was back then, and IF you are unable to see that, then so be it. If I recall correctly, MOST Americans couldn't get ENOUGH of going to War with Iraq! Anyone change their mind now?? I knew BEFORE The Idiot got himself appointed POTUS that he intended to go into Iraq, did anyone listen to me?? I can't think of one person! PNAC basically "advertised" it in the late 90's. I would like to think that MOST people can now see what kind of destruction it's caused! And do tell, how MUCH are we hearing about THAT war today?? MSM is doing such a fine job of keeping us informed. One would almost think it's forgotten. I DO AGREE it was a monumental fiasco! But it's not ALL the fault of John Edwards, no matter what role he played. His message now has changed and it's much more in line with what I feel this country needs, but one that far too many in D.C. don't REALLY want to happen. So if Feingold has no problem with Clinton and how she explains it, it does make me wonder.
So, what do YOU think Feingold's purpose was when he made ANY statement IF he didn't intend to endorse ANYONE? He could have said NOTHING, and yet chose a "put down" on John Edwards. Did he just want to "say something" because he wasn't getting attention? I don't think so. I believe there was some "intent" involved. EEWWWW, conspiracy theories!
As for Progressives, some of us prefer being called Liberals, but seeing as Ronnie Rayguns INTENTIONALLY used and abused that word, Democrats decided to run away from it. I wonder who came up with THAT idea?? Was it the DLC when they "decided" that being called a liberal meant you ALSO supported "welfare queens!" You remember them don't you?? I won't swear on a Bible it was them who felt "liberal" was no longer a viable word, but seems so.
So you can take that Shame Finger and shake it at someone else, you seem to be very good at it, but I don't have to accept your opinion or your outrage, nor do I!!
|