Honestly, I don't have a position on staying or going, primarily because I don't feel I have enough information to make that judgment call with a reasonable assurance of accuracy. I keep feeling a nagging sensation that there is a lot more to it all than we've been made aware of -- significant things that those on the inside know but are…
Honestly, I don't have a position on staying or going, primarily because I don't feel I have enough information to make that judgment call with a reasonable assurance of accuracy. I keep feeling a nagging sensation that there is a lot more to it all than we've been made aware of -- significant things that those on the inside know but are not communicating, for obvious pragmatic reasons. So I'm trusting Joe and the DNC to get it right, aware as they are of how high the stakes are in this particular campaign. I suspect that's something of a weak response to some people, and I understand that. But it's the truth about how I feel. I just don't know, as there is no easy answer one way or the other.
In contrast I feel a great deal of hostility now toward the Democratic Party for not game planning for this possibility, even privately, and seeing the scenario coming when the signs have been visible for some time. If we're honest about it, we've all been quietly hoping fervently with fingers crossed that Joe would not have a (real or perceived) age-related incident in a very public setting, for all to see. But here we are. If asked to choose among the alternatives, I suppose I'm with Harris, but I am persuadable otherwise. The one good thing about Harris that not enough people are talking about is that she already has been fully vetted -- for the 2020 campaign -- so I do not expect that any unforeseen skeletons are lurking with her. Who knows about someone else who has not been held up to presidential-level scrutiny? If the Dems were to go with someone else who has something of substance to hide, and it were uncovered in the time between the nomination and the election, then we might as well not bother watching the election returns on November 5. We'd be viewing in real time as the last guardrail keeping democracy from going over the cliff is removed.
Honestly, I don't have a position on staying or going, primarily because I don't feel I have enough information to make that judgment call with a reasonable assurance of accuracy. I keep feeling a nagging sensation that there is a lot more to it all than we've been made aware of -- significant things that those on the inside know but are not communicating, for obvious pragmatic reasons. So I'm trusting Joe and the DNC to get it right, aware as they are of how high the stakes are in this particular campaign. I suspect that's something of a weak response to some people, and I understand that. But it's the truth about how I feel. I just don't know, as there is no easy answer one way or the other.
In contrast I feel a great deal of hostility now toward the Democratic Party for not game planning for this possibility, even privately, and seeing the scenario coming when the signs have been visible for some time. If we're honest about it, we've all been quietly hoping fervently with fingers crossed that Joe would not have a (real or perceived) age-related incident in a very public setting, for all to see. But here we are. If asked to choose among the alternatives, I suppose I'm with Harris, but I am persuadable otherwise. The one good thing about Harris that not enough people are talking about is that she already has been fully vetted -- for the 2020 campaign -- so I do not expect that any unforeseen skeletons are lurking with her. Who knows about someone else who has not been held up to presidential-level scrutiny? If the Dems were to go with someone else who has something of substance to hide, and it were uncovered in the time between the nomination and the election, then we might as well not bother watching the election returns on November 5. We'd be viewing in real time as the last guardrail keeping democracy from going over the cliff is removed.