View Story | 14 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Can't people even consider writing a diary on why they support their candidate without resorting to immature behavior like labeling Clinton Miss Kyl-Lieberman? And it should be Ms by the way.
I absolutely get where you're coming from on the Iraq vote. And you've got plenty of positives to point out on Obama there. It isn't necessary to get all ugly on Clinton. It isn't going to win anyone over to your side. And I said the same thing to Alegre the other night about her diary.
Here's some simple advice: Always be yourself. Never take yourself too seriously. And beware of advice from experts, pigs, and members of Parliament. Kermit
by sobermom on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM PDT
One issue that unites this site almost unanimously is Iraq. Why the hell should the Dems nominate someone who got that issue dead wrong in 2002 and who continues to rationalize that glaring error today? She always says "if I knew then" even though she was too lazy to follow Intel Chair Bob Graham's advice and read the NIE before she voted aye.
K-L is the icing on the cake. If she's telling us the truth--she trusted W on Iraq in 2002 and got burned--then WTF was she doing trusting him again on Iran in 2007?
This choice is so obvious that it leads people to emotionalism at times.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
if your number one priority is Iraq. Indeed, it is a no brainer. But while the site is almost unanimous on its views on Iraq, I don't think it is unanimous on the list of priorities. Indeed, those for whom the Constitution was the first priority went with Dodd for obvious reasons. Those for whom economic justice was the first priority chose Edwards. Those for whom impeachment was the first priority chose Kucinich. While all of us see Iraq as an important issue, not all of us have it as number one. It isn't emotionalism, nor is it wrong, to have a different first priority.
For me the tone of diaries either adds or subtracts from the content. And almost always for me a negative tone overshadows the content. I'm consistent about that if you check my record. I said it to other Edwards supporters much to their dismay, I said it to Alegre the other night, and I'm saying it now. Some people like an aggressive angry tone. I don't. And I'm just suggesting to those who are looking to sway the votes of Edwards supporters that negativity isn't the way to go. The diarist is perfectly free to ignore that.
by sobermom on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 14 comments