Jesus Christ, Drudge has no sense of decency. Last night many of us reported that Dean spoke at Yale. The Yale Daily News did an article on the talk and I knew the reporter who wrote the story. He gave me an interview at around midnight last night about the speech, but he mangled my quote a bit. Anyway, the article was titled "Dean '71 Criticizes News Media".
Drudge put up a link titled "Dean SLAMS news media."
I shudder to think what sort of fallout this might have for Dean. As for me, I'm just really pissed that I'm on the drudge report.
Tonight I heard Howard Dean speak at Yale about the media's role in the election. It was energizing to say the least, and he even gave us a scream when he saw that many of us had Howard Dean signs out and gave him a standing ovation. Anyway, here is what Dean had to say about a future presidential bid / DNC chairman bid.
Dean didn't say anything too surprising, but I was heartened to hear what he had to say. Basically he confirmed that he was seriously considering a bid for the DNC chair, but doing so would mean no Dean candidacy in 2008. He also said that while he would regret not running later if the party did not improve, if he lost it would be a catastrophe for DFA. This is because 50% of DFA ers are not Democrats and only voted Democrat in the last election because Dean begged them. If Dean was rejected by the party insiders again, there would be no way to reign these supporters back in.
On Thursday I am going to give a speech on the topic resolved: Democrats better understand America. The resolution is very ambiguous, of course, but I plan to argue in the affirmative.
There is little doubt that Republicans better understand the American electorate, especially since they have won the last 3 election cycles. However, I do not consider the American electorate to be "America."
America is an ideal, or set of ideals, which seeks liberty, justice, and equality for all. America is the persuit of diversity, the dream of self-determination, and the quintessence of humanity. To this aim, Democrats have a much greater understanding of "America" than Republicans.
With this in mind, what are some arguments that YOU would give if you were me on Thursday?
I just delivered this speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union about 15 minutes ago. It was my first political speech ever so I was a little nervous, but as I got into it I really felt like I connected with all of those present. I got a ton of applause and even some Republicans came up to me afterward and congratulated me. Just thought y'all might want a laugh and read it.
The topic was resolved: America was wrong.
I, of course, took the affirmative. My speech is below the fold.
This morning I got this email from the chairman of the Party of the Right. These folks are some of the most hardcore freepers I have ever met. Enjoy their pessimism:
Election Night Madness
I'll be watching the poll returns in my room starting at 8 p.m.
tonight. Join me and my liquor as we laugh, commiserate, or do both at
the same time. It'll be nonpartisan, though I reserve the right to
laugh at libertarians who support Kerry. At any rate, it's going to be
a long four years no matter who wins or files the most shameless
lawsuits, so why not enjoy the night with friends?
My room is ** ** **, conveniently located on the fifth floor
of the ** tower. Call my cell at *-*-** or my room at -* to get let in. If we get too numerous, we may move, so call ahead
at my cell phone to find out where we've gone to.
I was disappointed by the fact that Edwards didn't hammer Cheney on the administration's idealistic "abstinence only" education policy with respect to the AIDS epidemic. I can see why Edwards didn't bring it up (being from a Southern state and all), but I think we should work this fact into our talking points.
On the question regarding bipartisanship, I was a little sad that Edwards didn't bring up the fact that Cheney has done little himself to "cross the aisle" to the Democrats- didn't Cheney himself tell Senator Leahey of Vermont to "go fuck yourself"? We should bring this up at every opportunity.
All in all a surprisingly good showing for Edwards, especially since the sit-down setting heavily favored the life-long beaurocrat Dick Cheney, obviously a man used to sitting his ass at a table and badgering everyone else to get his way.
Hey Kossacks,
I have met a fellow voter in a bit of a pinch. He recently turned 18 and received an absentee ballot for the state congressional primary election. Since he wasn't home, his older sister volunteered to fill out the ballot for him. Not realizing a signature was required, the voter agreed and his sister forged his signature without his knowledge. Skip ahead to last week. The voter in question received a notice from the country election board noting that his signature had "dramatically changed" and they requested he send a new signature to have on file for the general election. What should the voter do? What consequences might he face? The voter in question is from Washington state. Thanks guys!
The Yale Political Union is meeting on Thursday to address the issues of whether or not America should abolish the Electoral College. Of course, I know how you all feel about the E.C., but explaining it calmly and clearly to a bunch of very bright, well-informed students can be a challenge.
We will not be able to win this election until we get back to the main topics at hand. While the Iraq War has been a complete disaster and tragic waste, we cannot effectively convince the entire country that the war was a function of Bush's mawkish incompetency. What we can do is continue to mention Bin Ladin, Bin Ladin, Bin Ladin.
This is my first diary in about a month due to the fact that I just started college and I don't have much time anymore (I'll diary on this later). Anyway, I have been thinking a lot about Cheney's idiot slip about terrorism increasing if we make the "wrong choice" in the upcoming election.
He's right, of course. If Bush is wrongly re-elected, terrorism will increase, and there is a lot of evidence to support this.
I am not a lawyer or even a law-student, but I am curious as to whether the Kerry Campaign can sue the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth for slander and libel. The legal definition of slander, according to the 'Letric Law Library is
A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.
The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum. Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander.
likewise, the definition of libel is
A malicious defamation expressed either in printing or writing or by signs or pictures, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, with intent to provoke the living; or the reputation of one who is alive and to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. It has been defined perhaps with more precision to be a censorious or ridiculous writing, picture or sign, made with a malicious or mischievous intent.
Both seem to be the case with the Smearboat Veterans, and I think it would be a bold and aggressive move for the Kerry Campaign to confront this with the law on its side. I don't think this would affect moveon.org or other liberal 527s since they don't seem to fit the above definitions. So my question for all you law students, political scientists, and lawyers is whether or not Kerry can sue the SVFT and whether or not such an action would be wise.
So the GOP raised 43,000 signatures for Ralph Nader in Michigan so he could get on the ballot. While I find this practice despicable-- Ralphie needs to get his own signatures or else realize that he has no support and drop out-- I had a very amusing and incredibly malicious idea which would put even the GOP to shame. I read somewhere that the Libertarian Party pays as much as $1.50/ signature for its petitions. What if a large liberal contingency raised thousands of signatures for the Libertarian candidate at the aforementioned price and then donated all the money to Democrats running in critical congressional districts? Not only would they leech crucial votes from the GOP in this epochal election cycle, but they would raise money for the Democrats at the expense of the far-right. Would you do this sort of thing, or stay on the high ground, regardless of the outcome on the election?
Hey I was just curious if anyone else here at dKos is reading the 9/11 Commission's Report. If you haven't looked at it, I would highly recommend that you do; the more people at this site who are knowledgable on the report, the better. I think it's important that we take our own word for it and not the media's right wing spin. I've read the first 50 pages and I've learned a lot about the 9/11 attacks which I had not known previously. So far it has been both chilling and, at parts, inspirational. It is well written prose and reads, in my opinion, very easily (though I find pretty much everything that I read interesting too).
I have taken it upon myself to show why it is ludicrous to vote for Nader if you are a genuine progressive in this country. Despite his ridiculous chances of winning; his acceptance of GOP money, support, and signatures in Arizona, Oregon, and Michigan; and his pathetic performance in his debate against Howard Dean to name a few indications why Ralph Nader is not a viable progressive candidate, I'm going to throw the Nader contingency every bone they've asked for and then some.
I'm gonna take the day off tomorrow; I'm not even going to check the mainpage. My apologies to those I wrongly accused and to those who deserved my wrath. Let me end with a quote by John Donne:
"No man is an island, entire of itself.
Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
And if a clod be washed away by sea,
Europe is the less...
Any man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.
Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls:
It tolls for thee."
Sorry for any transcription errors- that was from memory.
