on the dnc
okay, i only caught bits and pieces of the john kerry show tonight, but i think i saw enough to ask one relevant question: when making a political speech, no matter how good, can't one cite some facts, somewhere, maybe?
i caught some really horrible speeches (some monotone governor from who knows where) to some really good speeches (i thought wes clark did an excellent job, stylistically speaking). but aside from the fact that john francois kerry served in vietnam, i did not catch a single solid fact or citation of anything kerry has done anywhere.
the speakers went on and on about how great he would be as president on domestic issues, on social issues, and especially on foreign relations issues. but there was not a single, logic based argument as to
why. can't we come up with something, somewhere? is there nothing more than assuring the people that he is both smarter and better...without any referance to a factual basis?
i've argued in south side coffee shops with people that present better arguments than this. which is what kills me, i know that these professional politicians know better; hell, any public speaking 1o1 student knows better.
is this the best they can do for him? and is that their fault, or his? i'm going with his. it's hard to use his record to present a moderate, sensible argument as to why kerry would be better at anything.
especially military affairs.
just makes me all that more anxious to see what happens at the rnc, though. if we can't beat these guys, then we don't deserve to have our president in office. fortunatly, our candidate has actually done some things that can be pointed out.
let's hope the talking heads that perform there use it.
