Here’s the funny thing: aside from rhetorical emphasis and some details here and there, it doesn’t look to me like we disagree much at all. We both agree we’re not in a war of civilizations (although he adds “yet”), we both have some problems with how Bush has handled things, we both think we need to stick it out in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to reduce our dependence on Mideast oil, etc. etc.
I’d argue a few points here and there, but probably nothing really major. So where’s the disagreement? What’s more, aside from his third point, which is a good idea but would be suicidal for a Democratic candidate to endorse, his platform sounds an awful lot like Wesley Clark’s to me.
Via email, AL says it was mostly the tone of the post he disliked ? I think maybe I used a code word that I wasn’t aware of. Frankly, though, the general tone that Michael and Roger and other posters at Winds of Change use regularly is so dismissive and condescending that I’m not really sure what they expect from the rest of us.