Well, to throw in $.02, I do think it is important to quantify on every scale
all possible presidential candidates, as well as qualify them. Not only the
candidates, but their cronies, who will make up their staff and cabinet. We
should know as much as possible about each in every possible way, not so
that we can predict what they (collectivley) will do in the future, but so
that we can steel ourselves better against events and actions to come. One
bright side of all this debate has been the chance to learn about the
candidates using the 'net - not only what they speak, but what others
differentially make about what they speak. It's just amazing.
I've learned that Kerry decided to support the president on Iraq only
reluctantly, and with a lot of qualifications that, in the end, were not met.
What's the difference? Well, did he fall for the spin? Did he decide for
what was being spun in the best interest of his country rather than stand
alone? The willingness to stand alone, without the coordination of other
nations as I recall, was Bush's inclination.
Nevertheless, my partiality to bunnies notwithstanding, I'd still vote for
Bugs, who is more real than a unicorn, and smarter than a whip. And a cast
of characters his cabinet would be, as all others have been before.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST