I guess that's my issue with the Dems this year.
The message is:
Vote for Change.
But what have the Dems really nominated this year?
For such unity, the Dems have put someone that voted for the war in Iraq, and now says it was wrong (they had access to the same intelligence). And worse then that a NYTIMES/CBS poll (two of the most liberal papers out there) says that over 80% are against the Iraq war... but again, he voted for it.
Then, they have a candidate who was a "war hero" (I don't mean that lightly - he was there and that's awesome) who turned around and came home and admitted committing war crimes (woah... Iraq, anyone)?
This party, as I just said, is against this war, and frankly against most wars. That's good if they believe that, but if that's the case, the Democratic Party should have put the man with their truest beliefs on that stage: Howard Dean.
At least they would have had a candidate that supports all of their stances. Right now, they don't. They traded "electability" for their true stances, and I think that is cause for great concern.
At the very least, it's all interesting how quickly John Kerry rose up in light of all these issues. Is it ok to trade "electability" for the real issues?