John Edwards.
I fully admit that my reason for doing so is probably stupid, but it’s mine and I’ll stick to it. The reason I’m pulling for Edwards is because when the WGA had a rally in Washington Square Park a few weeks ago, Edwards was the only presidential candidate who actually showed up to address us (as he had in a similar gathering on the West Coast.)
By contrast, Hillary and Obama merely sent letters of support…letters that, as it happened, had grammatical errors. Never a good idea, sending letters with grammatical errors to a gathering of cranky writers.
And by the way, considering how much of a hullabaloo the media made over his $400 haircuts, I have to say…dámņ, the man has good hair.
In any event, my simplistic view is that if he took the time to support us, then it’s the least I can do in return.
So John Edwards gets my vote come the Democratic primary.
PAD
• 
He’ll sign up with the winner because even George HW Bush can win the presidency as vice president. He just won’t sign up with Hillary until Obama has refused to invite him to the ticket.
Another plausible fix for Hillary would be to put her socialized healthcare plan to the forefront of her campaign, and I think she should. If she doesn’t, it will most likely be because she’s too traumatized by the healthcare industry attack machine Edwards has demonstrated he’s not afraid to challenge. I still think Hillary is a better candidate than Obama because of healthcare, but if she has some kind of PTSD against the healthcare industry attack machine, then she’s just a useless lump.
But the thing that makes political predicting so much fun is that you never really have any clue what will happen or for what reasons it will happen.
Oh, I dunno. When Kerry stated about three months before the election that, if he’d known then what he knew now, he would still have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, I announced on this blog that Kerry had just lost the presidency, and it was all over except for the actual voting.
PAD
But, if you’re correct and Hillary can’t possibly recover…and Edwards doesn’t seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries…it’s a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.
Look up the word “if”. IF Hillary is toast and assuming Bad-ášš Edwards continues to do as the polls say (lose) THEN Obama is a lock. They might as well cancel the rest of the primaries and save money for the general election.
And it’s no longer a wonder you feel the need to challenge what I say… why?
Sorry, thought I was clear–the bolded text above was my interpretation of your position==you seem to be saying that Obama has it locked up. And hey, that scenario is fine with me–I just think it’s too early to do so. When Hillary had all the cards it was a reasonable (though wrong) assumption that she was going to win but given the way this campaign has been turned on its ear it seems a bit early to make that call. Obama now has to demonstrate how well he handles being the front runner. Hopefully better than Hillary did.
I have been referring to him shoving a $100 million candidate out of the race on day 1 of the primary season. He is a bad-ášš.
He came in a far second. Obama is the bad ášš.
Oh, I dunno. When Kerry stated about three months before the election that, if he’d known then what he knew now, he would still have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, I announced on this blog that Kerry had just lost the presidency, and it was all over except for the actual voting.
And you were right…but if Kerry had been a little smarter and spent some of the 16 million or so he inexplicably had left over on the day of the election for some saturation get out the vote measures in Ohio…what a dûmbášš.
Interesting that almost nobody is commenting on that dope Huckabee winning. Obama vs Huckabee…actually ANYBODY vs Huckabee, even Biollante…massacre. Johnston vs Goldwater time.
Incidenatally, if you want a really funny dissection of teh whole insane Iowa caucas system, read http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWRhMjZmMzIzN2JkODQ5NjQyYWQ5YzU4MmRkOTUxMDg=
I knew it was nuts but wow…basically it comes down to the fact that a single choice by a young college aged woman is all that kept Hillary and The Bad Úš from being in a tie.
New Hampshire at least looks like areal election–Obama has pulled way ahead in the polls.
I happened across Keith Olberman interviewing John Edwards on Countdown last night… and he gave me the impression that he’s sprinting for the VP spot on Obama’s ticket at a full gallop.
Again and again, he kept talking about “the two candidates for change”, being very respectful of Obama, while empathasizing the idea of Clinton as the status quo. It may just be that Edwards sees Hillary’s campaign as more vulnerable right now, and he’s trying to finish her off first, and later set his sights on Obama; and he did say that there are differences in how he and Obama would achieve their goals. But he also emphasized that the two of them do share the same goals, and overall gave the impression that he was trying to join with Obama at the hip.
I do have to say that I was disappointed with Edwards’ appearance. He came off as just another uber-slick politico, refusing to directly answer most (any?) of Olberman’s questions – even about the significance of the record turn-out in Iowa – keeping focused on his own talking points, no matter how tangentially they may have been related to what Olberman was asking.
Support for the WGA is a definite plus in his column, though; it’s definitely one piece of data I’ll keep in mind as the New York primary approaches.
k8tdad wrote: “I think Edwards is the only hope America has of taking back our country and making me proud to be an American again.”
Despite America’s flaws and historical political bøøbërÿ, I’ve always been proud to be an American.
In once sense though it’s to Hillary’s advantage to have Edwards remain in the race; without him splitting the anti-Clinton vote it’s just her vs Obama. And right now I don’t know if that would be a great place for her to be.
> Obama … is a huge unknown, and to my knowledge, he has never run any large organization in his life.
Shrub ran big organizations. Your point being …?
Mr. David John Edwards may be a stand up guy, but that doesn’t make him the best candidate to run the country. Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.
Lester Carthan
basically it comes down to the fact that a single choice by a young college aged woman is all that kept Hillary and The Bad Úš from being in a tie.
C’mon, Bill, you know it’s not that simple. 🙂
More so when stuff like this was happening all over the state. I wouldn’t be surprised if the exact same scenario, in a different order, was played out in all corners of the state, as that’s the nature of the caucus.
Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.
Oh c’mon, he even prefaced it with the disclaimer that it was just his opinion and a possibly stupid one besides. We may be Marvel zombies but give us some credit–nobody is likely to change their vote based on an endorsement like that.
Anyway, why should he censor himself on his own frikkin blog?
Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.
Oh c’mon, he even prefaced it with the disclaimer that it was just his opinion and a possibly stupid one besides. We may be Marvel zombies but nobody is likely to change their vote based on an endorsement like that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the exact same scenario, in a different order, was played out in all corners of the state, as that’s the nature of the caucus.
You’re right but it just seems like an unusually capricious way to have such an important election.
Mr. David John Edwards may be a stand up guy, but that doesn’t make him the best candidate to run the country. Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.
I’m not sure whether to be flattered by your estimation of my influence or annoyed at the highhandedness of your tone. I’ll have to think on it.
PAD
I said Hillary had been shoved out. You made that a condition for something I didn’t disagree with. That ain’t a disagreement on your part, for which I am happy to keep asking if you even have any disagreement with me at all.
Who isn’t a bad-ášš with Obama’s $100 million? Oh, yeah… Hillary.
Anyone who has a blog or other access to the public has the right to make his opinions known, and his readers should be trusted to judge for themselves whether to believe what he says. In this case, PAD took even more care than was necessary to qualify his statements. To be realistic, while he has a larger audience than most or all here, nothing said here is going to sway the electoral results. It’s just a semi-public man expressing himself to people who care to listen.
I understand PAD’s comments above, but think he hasn’t mentioned one important point. Lester Carthan may be over-estimating PAD’s influence; He may also be taking an unpleasant tone in expressing himself, as PAD notes; More importantly than these, however, he demands that PAD silence himself – or at least think harder before posting here. This shows either a disrespect for PAD’s (or any other public person’s) free speech rights or a contempt for the general public’s discernment. Actually, if the people were so gullible as to swallow whatever was said by public figures it would deserve to be so led – but it really isn’t quite that bad. Many people do think for themselves.
You’re right but it just seems like an unusually capricious way to have such an important election.
Well, I suppose that depends on whether you think the Iowa caucus is really that important or not.
I think it’s good for the state, but beyond that? It really only weeds out those who had no chance anyways.
Who isn’t a bad-ášš with Obama’s $100 million? Oh, yeah… Hillary.
Obama has more money than Edwards because Obama is a better candidate. Even without the years of nonstop campaigning that Edwards had, even without the powerful ties to big donors that Hillary has, he whipped them both raising money and getting votes. THAT’S a bad-ášš.
Edwards not only lost to Obama, he got less support than he did the first time he ran a losing campaign for president (at this rate he should get around 28% for his 2012 losing campaign).
BTW–a new drinking game for those watching either debate. Take a shot every time a candidate uses the word “change”. Keep stomach pump handy.
You just want more sick-looking people for backgrounds on yer next movie, don’tcha, Mulligan?
Well, Jerry suggested ZOMRILLA (Half Zombie! Half Gorilla! All Terror!) so what I REALLY need is a gorilla suit.
Have you SEEN the prices on a good gorilla suit??? Why don’t any of these so called candidates do something about THAT?
Thank you for not disagreeing the $100 million Hillary is not a bad-ášš. It’s a wonder why you quoted me as if you had provided some kind of rebuttal.
A gorilla suit? Who needs a gorilla suit? What, you mean you’re not all as hairy as I am?
You freaks!
You can spin it any way you want, Mike, but if there’s a bad-ášš in the race it sure ain’t Edwards. How many more losses do you think he’ll take before dropping out? Oh well, there’s always 2012…
Jerry, you’re a great guy, but we need a gorilla, not a yeti. Maybe if you shaved…
Wow, I really hope nobody did that drinking game. This sequence alone would kill a large man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA
(post debate analysis–Obama won easily. He hasn’t changed his presentation all that much but it seems so much more appropriate coming from the frontrunner than it does the underdog. Hillary looked pìššëd. Edwards and Richardson showed up.).
Obama has more money than Edwards because Obama is a better candidate. Even without the years of nonstop campaigning that Edwards had, even without the powerful ties to big donors that Hillary has, he whipped them both raising money and getting votes. THAT’S a bad-ášš.
Actually, that’s not necessarily true. Obama takes PAC and Lobbyist money. Edwards doesn’t. A far greater measure of support would be NUMBERS of supporters, especially those who donate under $100 a month.
I, too, think Edwards is the best person for the job; I hope he pulls something out in NH here. I would much prefer to see an Edwards/Obama ticket rather than an Obama/Edwards ticket.
Drew, I’d have to look a bit more for up to date numbers but for the first quarter of 2007 ABC had the following: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=3008821&page=1
Obama received donations from more than 100,000 donors, far surpassing any other candidate, including Clinton (50,000); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., (45,000); former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, (40,000); or former GOP Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (34,000).
And 90 percent of Obama’s donors contributed $100 or less, as opposed to the presumbed larger percentage of Clinton donors who contributed the maximum contribution allowed by law, $2,300 per person per voting cycle.
at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3338422
they have a story on the second quarter–…Obama’s campaign released the number of its online donors thus far: 110,000. Those donors have contributed $10.3 million during last quarter, bringing Obama’s online totals to $17.2 million. Nine in 10 of those donors gave $100 or less.
at http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/turns_out_obama_still_found_mo.php
Marc Ambinder reports that 92.5% of all 550,000 donations Obama received have been for less than $250.00
It seems as though Obama has been wildly successful in attracting a lot of small donors. Edwards, not so much, which is why he had to make the choice to accept taxpayer money for the primaries. It’s interesting to speculate what might have been had this new feistier Edwards been the one running against Kerry in 2004 but it would appear that this is not what the public is looking for this go around.
Drew, I’d have to look a bit more for up to date numbers but for the first quarter of 2007 ABC had the following: abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=3008821&page=1
Obama received donations from more than 100,000 donors, far surpassing any other candidate, including Clinton (50,000); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., (45,000); former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, (40,000); or former GOP Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (34,000).
And 90 percent of Obama’s donors contributed $100 or less, as opposed to the presumbed larger percentage of Clinton donors who contributed the maximum contribution allowed by law, $2,300 per person per voting cycle.
at //abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3338422
they have a story on the second quarter–…Obama’s campaign released the number of its online donors thus far: 110,000. Those donors have contributed $10.3 million during last quarter, bringing Obama’s online totals to $17.2 million. Nine in 10 of those donors gave $100 or less.
at //marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/turns_out_obama_still_found_mo.php
Marc Ambinder reports that 92.5% of all 550,000 donations Obama received have been for less than $250.00
It seems as though Obama has been wildly successful in attracting a lot of small donors. Edwards, not so much, which is why he had to make the choice to accept taxpayer money for the primaries. It’s interesting to speculate what might have been had this new feistier Edwards been the one running against Kerry in 2004 but it would appear that this is not what the public is looking for this go around.
post debate analysis–Obama won easily.
Interesting analysis.
On another site I read, the right-wingers are falling over each other to say that not only did HRC win (based on the first half of the debate), but that it gave her the nomination.
I can only laugh.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 6, 2008 01:13 AM
On another site I read, the right-wingers are falling over each other to say that not only did HRC win (based on the first half of the debate), but that it gave her the nomination.
Could very well be that they want Hillary to run not only because she’s the closest to the center of the big three…but because she has a reputation, they have years and years and years of material on her that they could recycle for a negative ad campaign, and she’s not universally trusted among Democratic voters.
Sorry, is that stating the obvious?
Anyway, I like Edwards too. I have for a long time.
I have my own reasons as I stated for why I’m wanting to vote but in reading the above.. how is anyone’s reason (PAD’s or otherwise) ridiculously silly for voting for a candidate
Mike Huckabee – I heart Jesus, Huckabee heart Jesus, therefore I heart Huckabee
Ron Paul – because he isn’t like the typical Republican
Fred Thompson – he was tough on crime on Law and Order
Barack Obama – he’s black
Hillary Clinton – Bill can be back in the House
Alan Keyes – he’s crazy
John Edwards – he’s a Union supporter
Not so crazy an idea
Until later
John
“Posted by Alan Coil at January 4, 2008 08:42 PM
I hope (well, truthfully, no, I don’t really care) that this doesn’t offend anyone too much, but my vote goes for— ABAMFR.
Anybody But A Republican.”
Unfortunately, this is where I’m at, too. If Edwards gets the nomination, I have no hesitation in voting for him; he’s a strong choice and I think he’d be a great leader. But I don’t think he can get the nomination.
If Hillary is offered, I will vote for her, because she knows what goes on behind the scenes. Any woman in that position will have to be ruthless to be taken seriously, and I think she is quite capable of being ruthless and making heads roll.
If Obama is given the nod, I will vote for him, because he doesn’t have as much baggage to carry with him, and sometimes a fresh start is a good thing. However, I do feel the country is too fervently bigotted in many places, and sadly he wouldn’t fare well.
People like Huckabee scare the daylights out of me, and I don’t see where they would have enough universal pull to gain a nomination. Believe it or not, there *are* a few last bastions of sanity left in the country. Dodd was never a contender in the first place. He’s done some good, he’s one of the better men in Congress, but he’s been there too long, is too entrenched in the cronyism. I’d have trouble voting for him as President, even though I help keep him in Congress.
Can we please fast-forward 10 months and get this agony over with?
If you’re going to go so far as to portray as spin the 1:1 pairing of Edwards shoving-out on the first day of the primary season a $100 million candidate and assessing him as a bad-ášš, I have no reservation against reminding you the spin is true. Spin™ is in no way a synonym for Wrong.™
On another site I read, the right-wingers are falling over each other to say that not only did HRC win (based on the first half of the debate), but that it gave her the nomination.
Well. she was feisty, she got the soundbite of the night. I just don’t think it was a soundbite that will win many hearts and minds.
I’d say her best bet–assuming they don’t have something big on Obama and the reliance on kindergarten essays suggests that they don’t–would be to do to him what Kerry did to Dean–convince the Democratic voters that choosing Obama would lead to defeat in the general election. Expect lots of new speculation on whether or not a black man can win. Oh, it won’t be that overt…they’ll tut tut about how isn’t it a shame that there are so many rascists out there and how they would never in a million years vote for someone like Obama.
The only problem is that Obama seems to handle this sort of thing very well. When Clintons NH co-chair Bill Shaheen tried that stunt by wondering if those nasty Republicans would ask if Obama ever sold cocaine it blew up in Hillary’s face.
She might also try to capture the hard core netroots Bush hating crowd by really amping up the attacks on Bush. Right now it seems that a lot of those voters have supported Edwards. When he drops out where will they go? My inclination is to say Obama but he has run a campaign based in large part on positive nonpartisan let’s all work together ideas. It’s gotten him grief from the Daily kos/Paul Krugman crowd. Between Hillary and Obama it’s clear that Hillary is the obvious “stick it to Bush” choice.
But if Obama continues to bring new people to the polls even that might not be enough. He’s doing what Dean was supposed to do and never did–inspire the younger voters to not only support him but actually show up on election day.
What Kerry did in Iowa was stand by watching Dean and Gephardt fight it out for the top spot with the negative campaigning that sent them to 3rd & 4th place. You sound like you could benefit from watching the PBS News Hour once in w while.
Posted by: Susan O at January 6, 2008 09:59 AM
If Hillary is offered, I will vote for her, because she knows what goes on behind the scenes. Any woman in that position will have to be ruthless to be taken seriously, and I think she is quite capable of being ruthless and making heads roll.
It’s that ruthlessness that gives me pause with Hillary. I am not completely certain she wouldn’t start another war, in large part because of her stances on Iran before that NIE came out.
If Obama is given the nod, I will vote for him, because he doesn’t have as much baggage to carry with him, and sometimes a fresh start is a good thing. However, I do feel the country is too fervently bigotted in many places, and sadly he wouldn’t fare well.
Remember, though, that Iowa is pretty white.
I’d say her best bet–assuming they don’t have something big on Obama and the reliance on kindergarten essays suggests that they don’t–would be to do to him what Kerry did to Dean–convince the Democratic voters that choosing Obama would lead to defeat in the general election.
What Kerry did in Iowa was stand by watching Dean and Gephardt fight it out for the top spot with the negative campaigning that sent them to 3rd & 4th place. You sound like you could benefit from watching the PBS News Hour once in w while.
Wow, somebody’s cranky. I would have thought your guy’s bad-ášš second place finish would have cheered you up.
Certainly the Dean/Gephardt fight helped neither. I am not aware of any analysis that claimed that Kerry’s strategy in Iowa was to stand around and watch. Sources?
At any rate, I did not say “What Kerry did to Dean in Iowa.” Iowa was just the beginning of Dean’s fall. His crazy, red-faced rant that night played right into the hands of his opponents and the story quickly became that only Kerry was electable. Remember the “Dated Dean, Married Kerry” buttons? (Some Dean supporters presciently added the phrase “Woke up with Bush”)
The Kerry folks effectively portrayed Dean as unelectable and Kerry as the person who could best beat Bush. Whether or not that was correct we will never know–given the fact that a lot of the blame for Kerry’s loss (according to Democrats) was his lack of passion and fire in the belly against the swiftboaters and other attackers, it’s hard to imagine Dean passively sitting by under a similar assault. But who knows?
At any rate, if you really believe that a huge part of Dean’s defeat was not on the electability issue I’d say you’re the one who needs to maybe broaden his horizons a bit.
Could very well be that they want Hillary to run not only because she’s the closest to the center of the big three..
Umm, not really. This is a group where there’s nowhere near center when it comes to liberals; all liberals are far, far left. They won’t tell you *why* they believe that, you get to figure that out on your own.
But the rest of what you said is dead on. 🙂
As I said on that site, the spin cycle is already on overdrive from the right wing.
One fellow even suggested that voting for Obama would merely be a case of liberals trying to ‘make up’ for past sins against blacks and other minorities. *sigh*
Obama has more money than Edwards because Obama is a better candidate. Even without the years of nonstop campaigning that Edwards had, even without the powerful ties to big donors that Hillary has, he whipped them both raising money and getting votes. THAT’S a bad-ášš.
Obama has something going for him that Edwards doesn’t — the media. Edwards’ message of challenging the corporations and the monied interests has led to a media blackout on his campaign. Edwards’ message is spot-on, but because an Edwards victory would challenge the fundamental power structures of the country, the media has to strangle the message and the messenger.
Edwards isn’t out of the fight, yet.
Obama has something going for him that Edwards doesn’t — the media. Edwards’ message of challenging the corporations and the monied interests has led to a media blackout on his campaign.
Weird. When Edwards appeared at the WGA rally, there were at least half a dozen TV cameras set up there recording his every word. Once Edwards departed, the cameras went too. Yet I didn’t see any footage of Edwards’s speech. Granted, I didn’t exactly comb the local news programs, so someone could have aired it.
PAD
The Edwards campaign is well aware that the media isn’t giving Edwards a fair shake. Look at Elizabeth Edwards’ smackdown of Chris Matthews after the Iowa Caucuses for one example. The media has gone out of its way to ignore Edwards.
This link explains the issue, this link has a wealth of statistics pre-Thursday, and this link has nifty pie charts for the post-Iowa media.
Why the lack of coverage on Edwards? Partly fear that he challenges the Corporate-Owned Media power structure. Partly that he doesn’t fit a convenient narrative.
Edwards’ message plays in Peoria, but as Charlie Gibson (no relation, by the way) demonstrated on ABC last night the media is out of touch with Peoria.
Bill Mulligan: Iowa was just the beginning of Dean’s fall. His crazy, red-faced rant…
Luigi Novi: I know that the media has long-portrayed Dean’s speech as such, but I’m disappointed to see you hopping on that bandwagon, Bill. What was so crazy about? His behavior was essentially the same you’d find at a pep rally, for crying out loud! That’s how people are supposed to act! He was getting everyone enthused about his campaign. If what he said or did was so crazy, then why was everyone cheering him on? Why was there no one there frozen, wide-eyed and silent, looking at one another saying, “Geez, what’s with Dean?”?
Luigi, I wasn’t trying to pile on the guy–it was Dean himself who called it a “crazy, red-faced rant” on Letterman. I meant to put that in quotation marks.
No, his behavior wasn’t nuts…but it was all that his opponents needed to portray him as nuts and unelectable.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 6, 2008 01:55 PM
One fellow even suggested that voting for Obama would merely be a case of liberals trying to ‘make up’ for past sins against blacks and other minorities.
*sigh*
Well, they’ve got us there.
That’s why we’re so happy that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, you see.
It’s also why we so fervently wish that the country would elect Alan Keyes as President.
Yup, it’s no secret that if we had our way, we would just kick everybody out of Congress and the Presidency and replace them with random black people off the street!
(Hmm, actually that’s something I might consider in the case of the Presidency right now. Not like we have a whole lot to lose…)
Your need to portray me as cranky is not proof of my crankiness. The PBS News Hour has been referring to the taboo against negative campaigning in Iowa as conventional wisdom, and how the lead candidates have been campaigning accordingly. I am simply making an observation plain to anyone acquainted with the show.
I’m not referring to any claim by Kerry, but his performance in the general election against Bush/Cheney 2004.
Kerry’s backed-off of his portrayal as a war hero in reaction to the swift-boat criticism. Dean lost the presidency with much less money.
Dean has spent as much time as president of the United States as Kerry, which is none at all.
NPR has been airing dozens of clips of Hillary in NH promoting herself as the agent of change. She spends a year defending her war-vote and her accepting corporate donations, and now she’s trying to overtake the candidates who overtook her on change. She has no clue.
Captain Naraht’s Immediate Future Predictions:
Democrats:
In the NH Primary half of the Independents break for Obama, creating a whole new race. Obama will be in great shape with a 7+point win in NH. In SC he wins easily and unless Hillary becomes a better candidate through conflict (as she so often does) Obama needs to make a serious mistake not to run the table in the Southern Super Tuesday states.
Edwards’s only chance is to hang close at 20% or more, wait for mistakes from either and look as the most electable of the three down the stretch. I have to say though, even hints of that has yet to materialize.
Republicans:
The other half of Independents break for McCain making McCain the front runner into SC where he is also very strong. After this, things get complex. With Rudy out until Super Tuesday (like a dolt) he will become a factor in those primarys creating a 4-way free for all in the South between Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain. When the smoke clears, don’t be surprised at a McCain/Huckabee ticket, or a Huckabee/McCain ticket. But as Republican Super Tuesday will indicate: any final result is possible on that side of the aisle.
–Captain Naraht: Resident of NH
P.S. I wanna see Bill Mulligan and Mike in Yeti-Zombie and Gorilla-Zombie costumes boxing it out for their favorite charities.
Who else would pay big money to see that?
–Captain Naraht
Kaiju Big Battel?
(yeah, it’d be fun but the secret to winning is to move as little as possible until your opponent passes out from heat exhaustion and water loss)
Anyway, I’m changing my vote to Ralph Wiggum.
… Dark Wesley is free to believe personal support for the WGA is beneath any candidate …
If I had ever said that, which in fact I never did. But don’t let something as troublesome as facts get in the way here.
Wesley
Facts? We’re talking about politics, man! What do facts have to do with it….??
PAD: “Weird. When Edwards appeared at the WGA rally, there were at least half a dozen TV cameras set up there recording his every word. Once Edwards departed, the cameras went too. Yet I didn’t see any footage of Edwards’s speech. Granted, I didn’t exactly comb the local news programs, so someone could have aired it.”
Okay, here’s a theory. Maybe sometimes they know that it’s going to be a speech that they don’t intend to air. Maybe they send the cameras to those speeches just incase some kind of train wreck happens. Like the “don’t taze me bro” incident.
Pad should run for Prez he would excellent at the debates run right over those slick talking derlicts.
I don’t have the money, the resources, or the patience to run for elected office. “Why should we vote for you?” “Because if you don’t, you’re an idiot.” Yeah, that’ll put me over the top.
PAD