Dear god, if we are attacked we will defend ourselves! How dare Obama for suggesting such a thing?
Seriously, you're making the mistake of believing that unilateral action is a Bush catchphrase that means invading countries for no particular reason. Since Obama used the same word, you're thinking that somehow, Obama=Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Not so much.
Beyond that, I can't imagine what you think his controvertial about Obama's policy. Even Edwards supporters think you're off-base here.
I would prefer a system that allowed us to rate whole diaries the same way we can rate comments. Sometimes we get hit with obvious troll diaries, and we just have to let them die off or to complain in the comments, rather than letting a group of people influence things by giving it a '1'.
Its not that diaries are so hard to make, but do you really expect us to generate diaries to respond to Breaking Blue commentary? There are enough crap diaries out there as it is...and often a response need not be more than a few sentences.
You guys are really sticking together on this one, and that's okay...I'm just asking that you consider all the angles here.
It helps when the editorializing is happening in a forum in which a response can be applied directly to the opinion in question, such as in a diary. This is preferable to posting opinion in the Breaking Blue column, which may or may not be done to avoid comments that would accomplish this:
Every campaign and every registered user of MyDD has the right to respond to every post made on MyDD.
It shouldn't be necessary to generate a diary to respond to a heavily editorialized, under sourced bit in the Breaking Blue section. I know you guys will stick together, but this is a ridiculous practice and should not continue.
Partisan hackery...I like it. There is a need for a bit of that, but its starting to wear on me a bit. Aside from the Obama/Edwards/Clinton duals, the frontpagers, aside from maybe Singer, have slipped quite a bit. Bowers is focused on breaking down polls and Stoller has disappeared into Kucinich/Gravel territory.
I suppose I could stop coming here, but where is the fun in that?
He'll be in the running for the VP spot, and I have no doubt at all that Clark will back the winning horse only . There is no reason for him to make an ass of himself with an early endorsement. Doing so would take him out of the running if anyone else wound up in the top spot.