|
Edited on Tue Dec-14-04 10:33 PM by mzmolly
enough for you?
There were MANY progressive issues "Democrats" fought for in 2004. One of which, was the desire to defeat Bush. That was the UTMOST progressive ISSUE IMO.
"millions of democrats marched and "fought like hell...against the invasion and occupation of Iraq."
That's right. Millions of what? "DEMOCRATS."
I don't need to wave signs that would hurt our nominees chances of winning in order to feel I'm represented.
Allowing the signs would have distracted from the greater message. As you know, JK voted for inspections and cautioned Bush against rushing to war ... what that boils down to is "a vote for war" now tell me how it's "progressive" to give the media fodder to use against the only man with a shot at defeating *?
Sorry, there's progressive, and there's just plain stupid. I wanted Kerry to WIN, I wasn't as interested in making a statement.
|