|
okay, maybe just SOME of us.
See, I've been a tree-hugging, protest-sign-carrying, go-against-the-mainstream liberal for a loooong time. But with that has come a lot of lost battles, and a growing pragmatic streak.
Y'know what? Dean's gun stance, which is not my own PERSONALLY, secretly pleases me because it's a winning stance that takes an issue off the table for the 'pubs, but at the very same time, it also isn't overtly offensive to me. That is, it isn't exactly what I like, but I can live with it.
Likewise, I would love a pure anti-death penalty candidate, but right now, that is a non-starter. So, again, part of me is secretly pleased that Dean is not exactly what I want, but his position is a more "electable" one.
It's the "guilty pleasure" syndrome, and it may have a lot to do with the whole electibility issue. That is, considering what Bush is doing to this country, I am willing to accept a less than 100% reflection of my own opinions if it's a trade-off for the larger picture and the chance to take an issue off the table for the 'publicans.
You may call it selling out. You may tell me that I should be supporting Dennis Kucinich - except that I'd also have to accept compromises with some of HIS positions. (And on a personal note, being from NEOhio, have had entirely enough of him, thank you very much.)
My point (and, yes I DO have one) is that we all have to make compromises in supporting candidates. We look at the WHOLE picture and are willing to let gooooo, or give a pass, on those things we do not like, in favor of our overall scorecard.
We all choose that which we can and cannot accept in candidates. I'm just a helluva lot more willing to compromise on the stuff that has in the past, and will in the future, kill us in the general election. And I'm a lot more interested in the whole package, rather than individual issues.
Flame away, call me a sellout, but at least I'm being honest here.
eileen from OH
|