Is it the fog of nostalgia that I wonder what happened to the integrety of the Washington Post and the New York Times? When Woodward and Bernstein went after the Watergate crimes and helped bring down the Nixon presidency. When the Times published excerpts of Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers bringing light to the elective war that need not have happened, Vietnam.
Am I in a haze or do I remember correctly that many of the posts last year in Kos were ferocious but civil? Jeez, I wonder if all the "fuck yous" and tit-for-tat insulting would occur in "real" life. In other words, would you say to x-candidate supporter in a bar, "Fuck you, your candidate is full of shit and so are you." But that is why the net is a double edge sword. It's a great tool, but it cuts both ways. And none of us have to really put ourselves on the line because of anonymity. Not that it isn't important to be protected as we really don't know who is reading this. A bar full of a handful of people is one thing; a saloon of thousands / millions(?) is something very different.
Post continued below in "Extended Box".
Sawbones
As I have stated in other posts, I will vote (gladly) for the eventual Dem nominee. Period. Now, some skeptical reader may say, "That's all find and good, Sawbones, taking the high road and all that, but come on, be intellectually honest, which candidate do you prefer?" I could hedge and say that I simply support them all, so what does it matter that I may prefer one candidate over the rest? I could also argue, that it would just cause a flame war and would weaken my statment that I will vote (gladly) for the eventual Dem nominee. So, the skeptical reader says, "Come on, Sawbones, you're amoungst friends. Spill it." Can't argue much with that, can I? So, here goes (not that my opinion counts much or for that matter whose does? But voting does count and I will vote in the primaries and GE for a Dem).
My preferred choices:
- Dean: Now I will admit that I have serious issues with some of the good doctor's platform. For one, I don't think capital punishment belongs in any civilized society. I think also that if you legislate capital punshment for certain specific crimes, you slap the face of victims families that do not fall into that specific crime, but who have lost a loved one which hurts just as much. Also, I am loathe to chip away at judicial and jury discretion. Look at three strikes in California, which reminds me of Les Misrables. Second, I hold that gun control is indeed a federal issue and the Second Amendment expressly uses the words "well-regulated", convienently left out by opponents of gun control when they cite the 2nd Amendment. Also, I don't see how having regulation takes away any one's gun ownership rights, whether they live in NY or VT. Lastly, I think Dean is too center for me. Yet, he had me when he challenged Democrats to act like Democrats and stand up to Dubya.
- Kerry. I was going to place the good Senator below second place. But, as angry as I am about his vote for the Iraq invasion (and I am still angry about this!), I think he does "get it" that the whole basis of war was B.S. And he also has a track record of opposing conventional "wisdom". I actually applaud him for not giving Papa Bush a go-ahead vote in Iraq I. Certainly, Saddam is a war criminal and did invade another country. But, there was much more to it than that (Remember Glespie, the fact that we helped this dictatorship during Reagan's tenure).
- Clark. I would possibly put Clark as 2b. I like the General a whole lot, but I think he needs some grounding as a public executive first. Sorry Clark supporters. Just stating how I feel. Of course, I will stump for him! I just think he needs some seasoning.
- Edwards. I think the good Senator could make perhaps a good Vice President, but I believe he needs more experience. Additionally, Edwards can be as "positive" and "nice" as he wants to be because the "heat" is on Dean and Kerry. And I would like Edwards to address his war authorization vote. Kerry seemed to be ill-at- ease during the whole Iraq vote experience and shortly thereafter (it can be spun that he voted yea for political expediency, but he seemed convinced that all diplomatic efforts were not used). Where is Edwards on the vote issue? I did not watch the SC debate, but from what I understand (I could be wrong), Edwards seemed to affirm that this war was still the right thing to do. If so, he really doesn't get it. And before some of you say that most voters don't care about the Iraq war, I respectfully disagree. Many of us know of families, friends, someone whose lives are affected by persons they know doing military service in Iraq. Plus, if this country continues its neo-con course, I would fear that a draft would soon be around the corner (now are you concerned?).
As the other candidates have no chance, it is superflous to comment (i.e. place rankings).
Cheers,
Sawbones