Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickypt
I understand what you're saying. From my perspective, there is nothing really politically advantageous to highlighting poverty as a key presidential issue. So I find him to be sincere. And you're right, the idea might not be new, but there have been solutions (or even much of an effort) to poverty.
|
I agree - it's not adventageous, as important as it is. I hate to say it, but 08 is still going to be about Iraq.
Speaking of Dennis Kucinich, did you catch this mention of him by Matt Taibbi in the last Rolling Stone? (I tried to look for it on the RS website, but no luck. Their web programmers are obvoiusly as stoned as their reviewers...)
Quote:
"Matt Taibbi writes in the Dec. 14 issue of Rolling Stone of hanging out in antiwarrior Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s office and seeing a thick binder his staffed compiled called “Iraq: Post-election Democratic Stances.”
Taibbi comes to two apt conclusions: “One, the Democrats have already taken enough different positions on Iraq since the elections to fill a large binder; and two, that the party is under intense surveillance by its more progressive-minded wing, who already suspect the leadership of looking for ways to pass the buck on Iraq.”
|
I read the Taibbi article a few days ago, and it struck me mainly because Matt didn't just happen to see the binder in Kucinich's office. When Matt was interviewing him, Kucinich made it a point to hold up the binder and say something like, "This is something you might be interested in seeing."
Is it 2008 yet?
Here's where I found the summation, btw:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/20...ate.html#links