 |
Monday, November 17, 2003 |
Testing... one, two... testing... Doc asked if candidates other than Dean have Internet policies. I couldn't find anything on the official Kucinich site, but I did post the following comment:
On the Issues page at http://www.kucinich.us/issues.htm, Dennis states, "This Issues Section will provide an introduction to my views. A debate always involves an exchange of ideas. I welcome and respect your opinions. I would like to hear from you."
Do you provide, on this site, a mechanism for Dennis to receive the feedback he has requested?
I got this friendly message after posting:
Thank you for writing the Kucinich Campaign. Your feedback and questions are important to us. We read every comment and promise to respond to any questions or requests as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
The Kucinich Team
So, I posted another question:
What happened to http://events.kucinich.us?
This is not a test of the candidate, it's a test of the candidacy, the network.
5:04:15 PM permalink
|
|
Jay Rosen: "There is something wrong." It's a reframing kind of day for me. Jay Rosen writes: "When 95 percent of the nation can be ignored by the operatives who run presidential politics, there is something wrong. Yet realism in the press says this is the way it is. Will that continue to be so?"
4:30:08 PM permalink
|
|
A time to reframe my world view I received my copy of Prayer for America Saturday. It's written by Dennis Kucinich, a Presidential candidate whose depth of dialogue betrays the shallow branding from corporate sponsored media. And, from this book, I'm going to reframe how I think about 'national security'. I agree with Herb's review: "This book should be read by all Americans, regardless of political views."
Candidate and candidacy, resonance and relationship, network of networks. Perhaps it's time to revisit what I think.
2:05:14 PM permalink
|
|
How do *you* define 'national security'? Kevin Drum at Calpundit writes: (italics mine)
And if you want one single thing to chew on, it's this: national security is going to be the main theme of the election. I don't care if we like it or not, the Republicans are the ones with the money and the bully pulpit and they're going to hammer on it. And while I know that a lot of liberals think that anti-war sentiment is going to wash over the country in a great wave, it's just not realistic to think that's going to happen. Really, it's not.
I happen to think Wes Clark is a better potential president than Howard Dean anyway, but electability is a key factor too. It's vitally important to get rid of George Bush and his insanely incompetent crew of ideologues before they do any more damage, and I don't think Dean can do it. Clark can.
1:27:36 PM permalink
|
|
Neener! Neener! Paul H, Henry writes: Since 1988, according to the university, the IEM [Iowa Electronic Markets] generally forecasts elections within a 1 percent margin of error, whereas traditional polls average out to a margin of error between 3.5 and 4 percent.
1:17:22 PM permalink
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Critt Jarvis.
|
|
|
