I did read what you wrote, thanks. And "you sound like you're channeling" and "you can do better" are - by my definition - rude, and on the patronising side. You're making the assumption that I've read or haven't read, and (editing to clarify: your assumption, not your opinion) - while certainly yours to do anything you wish with - is, in this instance, wrong.
So there you go. End of that argument; our opinions don't mesh on the starting point, so what's the likelihood of the rest of the threads meshing? Pretty low.
Repeating: I don't *care* who endorses a candidate. I look at said candidate and form my own opinion.
I live in the Bay Area. We produce, on any given day, an incredibly high percentage of starry eyes; I was surrounded by the Nader flavour in 2000, and that got us George W. Bush, since the chicanery would not have been possible without the Nader contingent's pre-election activities in Florida. I'm seeing it again with Obama, the same starry eyes.
Why is Rezko different from Whitewater? It may not be. But Obama has been hanging out with this guy even after Rezko was indicted, and he's going to be asked about it. So far, he's pushed it away. You really think that, if he gets the nomination, the Republican spin machine and the Scaife brigade won't rip him to shreds? Because there, again, we do not mesh. Whitewater was not a campaign issue in 1992, but Rezko would be one here. And I don't want starry eyes handing me John McCain or Mitt Romney. Been there, done that, still hate Ralph Nader.
And you know, really? Thus endeth my participation in the discussion. Because the end result of this kind of discussion only has value for me if some sort of agreement looks possible, and it doesn't here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-30 07:25 pm (UTC)So there you go. End of that argument; our opinions don't mesh on the starting point, so what's the likelihood of the rest of the threads meshing? Pretty low.
Repeating: I don't *care* who endorses a candidate. I look at said candidate and form my own opinion.
I live in the Bay Area. We produce, on any given day, an incredibly high percentage of starry eyes; I was surrounded by the Nader flavour in 2000, and that got us George W. Bush, since the chicanery would not have been possible without the Nader contingent's pre-election activities in Florida. I'm seeing it again with Obama, the same starry eyes.
Why is Rezko different from Whitewater? It may not be. But Obama has been hanging out with this guy even after Rezko was indicted, and he's going to be asked about it. So far, he's pushed it away. You really think that, if he gets the nomination, the Republican spin machine and the Scaife brigade won't rip him to shreds? Because there, again, we do not mesh. Whitewater was not a campaign issue in 1992, but Rezko would be one here. And I don't want starry eyes handing me John McCain or Mitt Romney. Been there, done that, still hate Ralph Nader.
And you know, really? Thus endeth my participation in the discussion. Because the end result of this kind of discussion only has value for me if some sort of agreement looks possible, and it doesn't here.