View Story | 489 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
"Progressive" on this site is a word without any meaning. It amtters not what position a candidate takes.
It is teh Ameircan Idol of politics.
Real change is so far away, betrayed by the so-called "progressives."
I am a democratic leftist. I beleivew in single payer, unions, and economic justice. I am no Rockefeller Republican.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08
by TomP on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:29:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
wow...I couldn't have described it better... but this is what we've come down to...
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
by crkrjx on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:57:16 AM PDT
even if many others don't
Possum for Congress Make Peace Possible. Jerry Northington.
by llbear on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM PDT
Nor does Gary Hart. In a better world, Edwards would be the presumptive nominee, and Feingold would be his running mate. Hell, in a truly just world, Jim Hightower would've become TX gov in the '90s and gone onto the WH.
In the world in which we actually live, however, we have a choice between someone who publicly states that McCain is great on "security" issues and one who doesn't. We have a choice between someone who, as Hart notes, crossed a line that no Dem should cross and someone who would never cross that line. We have a choice between someone who wants to make the decision to start a "pre-emptive war" a defining issue this fall and someone who wants to studiously avoid that issue.
While it's not the choice that many of us wanted, it's a choice nevertheless. Given McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" comments and his "100 years" comments, it's a big choice. While there are histrionics and hyperbole here, it's a choice worth getting angry and concerned about.
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 Mar 09, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM PDT
discourse is being affected by assumptions, over-generalization, and obsession with winning. I agree with you that the contest is important and passion here is a good thing. Nonetheless, the level of discourse could be a lot better.
To a lot of people, every issue, every comment, every discussion is nothing more than a chance to either promote their candidate or degrade the other candidate. The motivation behind every comment is to help their candidate or hurt the other. This is true even if the issue is the suffering of Guantanamo detainees or torture, issues which clearly transcend the pettiness of politics as usual. This is what is meant by "partisan hacks."
Furthermore, it seems to me that almost universally on this site now, comments are interpreted completely through the lens of the nomination--people are immediately assumed to be motivated purely by partisanship. By extension, the assumption is that there is no intellectual integrity to their position. So, all over this site, we have people constantly responding to others as though they had no integrity. This is deadly to productive discourse. And it's starting to look downright paranoid.
Finally, even those who decry the situation are now contributing to it, IMHO, by expecting the worst. Instead of throwing out their best stuff, they throw their hands up with dismissive one-liners, not even trying to mount a congent argument because they don't expect to be heard, and flinging frustrated criticisms at the process. I don't mean to alienate Hillary supporters with this, but "Be the change you want" is almost a perfect prescription here. I feel we are all laboring under very low expectations. We have slowly devolved into this behavior until many of us are contributing to it.
Over-generalizing, lumping people into groups, then shooting down the whole group at once--this is intellectual laziness. Many people here have nuanced views and they deserve to be responded to as individuals who have integrity and will respond appropriately to reasoned argument. Call me Pollyana, I guess.
The constitutional crisis was over two years ago. It's been full-scale erosion since then.
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:34:08 PM PDT
Well said!
by Flint on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:03:27 PM PDT
Kucinich would be President. He would have had Bush and Cheney not only impeached but tried for war crimes. The war in Iraq would be over and we would have true single payer universal health care!
However... back to reality... grumble grumble grumble!
by Flint on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 489 comments