"Edwards noted that Shelton is a fellow North Carolinian who has been a friend and adviser for many years."
So Clark and Shelton don't like each other. It happens. I find it more interesting that here is yet another retired general that seems to be jumping ship on the GOP. The flag thing bothers me, but ultimately it's too trivial an issue to make a difference in who I'd support. Completely freaking weird that Kucinich also supports a flag-burning amendment. Who'da thunk it?
This is the time, perhaps, for people like us to take a dose of the medicine we were handing out to the 'poor southern whites' and let a flag issue take backseat to things that, you know, matter. (Yes, I know this does too...)
Kucinich supports a flag-burning amendment? I mean, one that forbids it, not one that makes it mandatory? How interesting.
I agree that the flag issue doesn't make much difference to me. As for Kucinich, it sounds like he voted in favor of a ban, but is trying to explain it away.
" Let's talk about the context. Let's do it," he said. "The context of that vote came from a time when America was not at war and wasn't conducting aggressive warfare. … Now the meaning of the flag has been changed. And the flag is being promoted by an administration in such a way as to imply aggression. I think Americans have to be free to express their opinions. I mean the flag does stand for our nation. But I regret that our nation is standing for war today."
I like Clark, the man, and Clark, the candidate, too. And If I could somehow magically give him Dean's money and staff I'd happily switch camps.
But a good candidate -- even a potentially great one, like Clark -- with a rudderless campaign and $125 million less than Bush won't stand a chance. How will he get his message out? It won't matter that he's a great guy who would make an excellent President, because no one will know. So my money is still on Trippi's brain and Dean's bank account. For now.
Wow, that's idiotic. He's flirting with the principle that speech should be allowed if Dennis Kucinich endorses its content.
Suppose, weirdly, that the flag changed meaning. (I think this is like saying that "the president" changes meaning every few years, but never mind.) It's not like flag-burning moved from "low" speech (e.g., obscenity) to "high speech" over the last few years.
Not that I was going to vote for him, but it's disappointing to see the "I call 'em as I see 'em" no-pandering candidate make such a stupid hedge.
Al Gore. Draft Al Gore.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 11-12-03 7:03 AM
"Edwards noted that Shelton is a fellow North Carolinian who has been a friend and adviser for many years."
So Clark and Shelton don't like each other. It happens. I find it more interesting that here is yet another retired general that seems to be jumping ship on the GOP. The flag thing bothers me, but ultimately it's too trivial an issue to make a difference in who I'd support. Completely freaking weird that Kucinich also supports a flag-burning amendment. Who'da thunk it?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-12-03 7:47 AM
This is the time, perhaps, for people like us to take a dose of the medicine we were handing out to the 'poor southern whites' and let a flag issue take backseat to things that, you know, matter. (Yes, I know this does too...)
Kucinich supports a flag-burning amendment? I mean, one that forbids it, not one that makes it mandatory? How interesting.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 11-12-03 7:57 AM
Yep, Kucinich and Gephardt both support it. Edwards, Lieberman, and Kerry have publicly opposed it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-12-03 8:02 AM
I agree that the flag issue doesn't make much difference to me. As for Kucinich, it sounds like he voted in favor of a ban, but is trying to explain it away.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-12-03 8:44 AM
I like Clark, the man, and Clark, the candidate, too. And If I could somehow magically give him Dean's money and staff I'd happily switch camps.
But a good candidate -- even a potentially great one, like Clark -- with a rudderless campaign and $125 million less than Bush won't stand a chance. How will he get his message out? It won't matter that he's a great guy who would make an excellent President, because no one will know. So my money is still on Trippi's brain and Dean's bank account. For now.
Posted by jhp | Link to this comment | 11-12-03 9:04 AM
Wow, that's idiotic. He's flirting with the principle that speech should be allowed if Dennis Kucinich endorses its content.
Suppose, weirdly, that the flag changed meaning. (I think this is like saying that "the president" changes meaning every few years, but never mind.) It's not like flag-burning moved from "low" speech (e.g., obscenity) to "high speech" over the last few years.
Not that I was going to vote for him, but it's disappointing to see the "I call 'em as I see 'em" no-pandering candidate make such a stupid hedge.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 11-12-03 9:33 AM