while I've never been particularly concerned

[ulysses]

with Kerry's Bonesman thing, do the folks here who are so horrified at these kind of attacks on him think that they're materially different than the attacks we saw on Dean for several months? Would those who are preaching unity now that their candidate is the presumed nominee be gathering to sing "Kumbayah" if it'd been Kerry who'd dropped out this week instead of Dean?

[Taeger]

1. It doesn't matter

I can savage Skull & Bones and accuse it of being Satan's chosen fraternity. It won't affect the general election.

The reason is obvious. Bush is a member as well. The right can't use that rhetoric against us.

So if I'm going to savage Kerry on something, it might as well be over Skull & Bones.

[ibegurpard]

2. Not the same at all

Dean deserved it and Kerry doesn't. ;)

[ulysses]

4. damn, I keep forgetting that.

;-)

[Democat]

3. Whoever the candidate is needs to be unified behind, it's the only way

Unless you want Bush appointing Supreme Court justices, then the Democrats need to rally behind whoever is nominated. If that was Dean, then it would be Dean. If it is Kerry, then it is Kerry.

Whether people here want to admit it or not, Joe Lieberman would even be a hundred times better than Bush.

We need Bush gone in 2004, no matter who the Democratic nominee is.