Leave a comment

Comments 8

nonobjective November 3 2004, 19:49:59 UTC
we should have started more than a year ago, when the democrats were looking for a candidate. they didn't pick the right one, im convinced of that. they picked a slightly taller bush.

dean wasn't perfect, but at least he was anti-war and anti-patriot act, unlike "business as usual" kerry.

Reply

pushyouaround November 3 2004, 19:51:28 UTC
i was for kucinich.

Reply

nonobjective November 3 2004, 19:58:20 UTC
Kucinich was an excellent candidate. politically the one i'm most aligned with.

the democratic party sold out on him, and immediately tried to marginalize him as "too liberal"

He's still also in a lot of debt from his campaign. kerry helped some of the others out financially (dean, edwards) when he was chosen as nominee, but pretty much handed dennis his head on a platter at the convention.

that's a sad story of how the democrats are treating the liberal and progressive base of their own party. why do you think i've been so bitter =)

Reply

pushyouaround November 3 2004, 20:37:41 UTC
kucinich is the one i am most in line with.

you are a bit bitter...i have noticed :)

whenever anybody calls me ultra-liberal i take that as a compliment.

Reply


dferahgo November 3 2004, 20:27:05 UTC
We could have.

I was too confident (me?!) in the power of my generation (them?!) and their perception (Americans?!).

We could easily become a lot of disenfranchized drunks.

"Oh, another Amendment taking away our rights? Fuck. Pour me another."

Reply

pushyouaround November 3 2004, 20:39:35 UTC
that is what most people say. i heard a person say today "who cares who is president? doesn't affect me."

Reply


purple_roses November 3 2004, 22:24:43 UTC
Well, I don't think I agree with you. Yes, a small majority said "yes"...but nearly half of us said no. That counts for something.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up