I have very little respect remaining for Andrew Sullivan, whose primary goal seems to be getting the government to affirm the particular manner in which he achieves orgasm as absolutely spectacular. Of course, for the swing voters, the Kerry/Edwards team is talking relatively hawkish and responsibly about the war on Terror and Iraq, but can we trust how they will act in practice, given Kerry's speaking on both sides of hundreds of issues, his weak voting history on national security matters, and the chance that there may be new challenges, e.g., other terror attacks, Iran, North Korea, in the next four years?
The saddest part of Sullivan's political leanings always being dictated by his personal preferences is that he is one of the most brilliant and astute thinkers and writers of all the editorialists. And he has quite a grasp of history and literature and many subjects. I used to love reading his columns but lately he most definitely has an agenda in this race, and it certainly isn't to re-elect Pres. Bush. And for him to go with Kerry and Edwards seems to contradict much of what he professed to believe earlier.
Who really thinks Edwards and Kerry are pro-Iraq war? It's like Terry McA saying to O'Reilly that he never called Bush a liar. They change their opinions and words with the polls and latest hyped info from the media.