If you have even the remotest interest in the outcome of the 2006 midterm election you must read the New York Times Sunday morning Magazine article.
I beginning to wonder if I'm cut out for this stuff?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogs are digital journals that cross the private/public boundaries in strange and interesting ways. A single moment in time, forever suspended for comment and critique. These are the times and trials of my life, whether political, legal, social, or moral. But as with anything written in a journal, take these comments for what they are: ramblings that would probably be better kept to myself.
Sean Kellogg
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 License.
Better I rant here than somewhere else
1 comment:
Greetings, Sean!
I found the article half insightful and half confusing. I felt like I was reading a political can't-be-wrong horoscope. Democrats simultaneously need to triangulate and to be passionate and authentic? They hope to showcase a popular agenda, but they'll be too far out on the political spectrum?
And the large story is that sure, Democrats may be a united caucus now, but the different approaches to the election by the various quoted parties will waste a lot of energy. The writer even called Dean a Righteous Loser (using more words).
In a polarized country, the Democrats need to fight for their principles. Fortunately, it seems to be news every time Democrats do this now. I don't trust Emanuel to navigate around policy to electability; I would rather have Feingold and Dean any day.
Post a Comment