A Leg to Stand On

John Kerry's Speech at NYU

Finally, a speech with some actual points in it. I'm sure he's been making them all along, but me, here in my little bubble of isolated Taminess hasn't been hearing them. I did some more reading today, poked around the Kerry website some more. I have to say, I don't like reading the site, the style is too slick, too general. I understand that the site is an important marketing tool for the campaign, but it *feels* like they're not telling it to me straight. The speech I read (given at NYU) felt more like an explanation than a hard sell. It felt more like information than advertising.

As I was saying, I'm really glad to read this speech. It (for me) starts adressing not only what the current administration is doing wrong, but what an actual alternative plan might be. No, I can't say that every talking point here is stellar, or even likely, but I can say that they aren't immediately stupid. I particularly like the point about not awarding reconstructionist contracts to big American companies, especially ones that are under investigation. I applaud the fact that Kerry says that more Iraqi companies should be involved. I like these points.

The statement that Bush denied UN members who didn't send troops the ability to take part in the reconstruction sounds a tad bit petty to me. We're just talking about France. Denying France oil drilling rights to Iraq isn't that black and white. France was in bed with Iraq and was willing to sell them a nuclear reactor. Selling nuclear technology to a nation filled with people who seem eager to kill isn't my idea of a good thing. There was more going on there than just sour grapes. So while I think that getting other countries, and definitely Iraq itself, involved in the reconstructionist efforts is a great idea, I think the spin on it is a little too... childish? Simplistic? Not sure what the right word is, but this statement is not looking at all the ingredients.

I'm actually kind of glad that I see that kind of fault in the speech, because a perfect candidate would make me *really* nervous. As it stands now, Im' confident that a change in government would be a very good thing, and this is the particular change that I'm going to back. I refuse to back or not back a candidate based on his personal behavior alone. It's a relief to finally have some points to agree or disagree with. I was uncomfortable backing a candidate just because he wasn't the other guy, and now I don't feel like I have to, anymore.