An AP article at the NY Times website shows the differences in the way Howard Dean and John Edwards are attempting to "catch up" with Kerry's steamrolling primary-performance. I appreciate the writer's point, which is that it's not too late for these two to catch up with Kerry....but rather, it is too late to change their respective approaches to beating him. Edwards has taken the deliberate 'polite' approach. Dean has not been afraid to say what he thinks in what is seen by some as 'attacks'. I found a bit of intellectual dishonesty (and a lot of political seasoning) in the following statement from this AP article:
"We'll never go at anybody with a sledgehammer. That is not what people want,'' said David Ginsberg, [John] Edwards' communications director. "The differences between John Edwards and Kerry will become clear to voters as they hear our message.''I believe, if John Edwards was to pull ahead of Kerry, it would not solely be due to politeness. He would owe a great debt to fellow candidates (like Howard Dean) who were never afraid to make the differences between the candidates loud, proud, and crystal-clear.
UK newspaper The Guardian has asked 25 prominent contemporary authors to offer their opinions of the Iraq war. The website states this is a bit of a repeat of 1937, when WH Auden and Stephen Spender asked 150 writers for their views on the Spanish Civil War. The result was the book "Authors Take Sides".