I had my doubts about Kerry's capabilities, but after watching his latest speech I have to say that my opinion has been substantially ameliorated.
As mentioned in CNN's coverage, for the first time he didn't talk about his war record or any of the other detracting flap that's been so common in previous appearances. This was a different Kerry, and even if this is portrayed as yet more evidence of vacillation, I have to say that, for me, it was both reassuring and inspiring.
I don't say that lightly.
It's a welcome air.
...
True to the spirit of welcome air, two more gentle breezes blew through today and tickled my sense of poetry.
The first zephyr was an interview with Rep. Rangel (D - New York) on Inside Politics following the approval vote for the latest tax cut. The Rep. railed on in comprehensive fashion regarding the budget issues, timing of the proposal and such, and Judy Woodruff asked him why, considering his and other Democrats' opposition to this, they voted for it. He answered (to paraphrase):
If we had voted against this, what would we be able to say when our consitiuents asked us, "Did you vote against the child credit?" Yes, I did, but there were budget issues?
We voted for it because voting against it would have been political suicide. We need to stay in office so that we can kick ass next year.
An admission of the obvious, yes. Yet it was refreshing to hear it admitted directly, without hesitation and with more than a small amount of pride.
Kudos to Mr. Rangel. There may be hope yet.
The second and somewhat more sinister wind was brought to my attention by SonOfMorrissey's recent post in the CE boards about Saddam being a potential candidate in the upcoming Iraqi elections. I find it especially amusing (in a darkly appropriate way) that the linked article notes a degree of support nearly equal to that for President Bush here in the States.
Assuming that the information is accurate, I can't wait to hear the spin on this one.
As mentioned in CNN's coverage, for the first time he didn't talk about his war record or any of the other detracting flap that's been so common in previous appearances. This was a different Kerry, and even if this is portrayed as yet more evidence of vacillation, I have to say that, for me, it was both reassuring and inspiring.
I don't say that lightly.
It's a welcome air.
...
True to the spirit of welcome air, two more gentle breezes blew through today and tickled my sense of poetry.
The first zephyr was an interview with Rep. Rangel (D - New York) on Inside Politics following the approval vote for the latest tax cut. The Rep. railed on in comprehensive fashion regarding the budget issues, timing of the proposal and such, and Judy Woodruff asked him why, considering his and other Democrats' opposition to this, they voted for it. He answered (to paraphrase):
If we had voted against this, what would we be able to say when our consitiuents asked us, "Did you vote against the child credit?" Yes, I did, but there were budget issues?
We voted for it because voting against it would have been political suicide. We need to stay in office so that we can kick ass next year.
An admission of the obvious, yes. Yet it was refreshing to hear it admitted directly, without hesitation and with more than a small amount of pride.
Kudos to Mr. Rangel. There may be hope yet.
The second and somewhat more sinister wind was brought to my attention by SonOfMorrissey's recent post in the CE boards about Saddam being a potential candidate in the upcoming Iraqi elections. I find it especially amusing (in a darkly appropriate way) that the linked article notes a degree of support nearly equal to that for President Bush here in the States.
Assuming that the information is accurate, I can't wait to hear the spin on this one.
And can you imagine if Saddam Hussein won a democratic election in Iraq? That would be pure insanity, though with a bitter ironic twist pointed at the Bush administration. My understanding is that in the late 60's (or early 70's, I can't remember and am too tired to look it up) he actually was democratically elected, but took the opportunity to seize whatever remaining power wasn't his and consolidate it to make himself president for life.
Charles Rangel is an interesting fellow. He represents the district where I work in NYC, and is very well regarded there, although outside the district is able to draw Republican ire like few others who aren't named Clinton can. I think there's something telling about how an outspoken African-American man can draw such immediate criticism, even when what he's saying makes sense. There's a dark undercurrent of racism in the US that still exists, unfortunately, and it often doesn't take much to bring it to the surface.