Nader is in

[SA210]

Ralph Nader is running for President.
Should John Edwards not be selected for VP, my vote will go for Nader.

:smokin


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

[inconvertible]

well, what do you know?

sorry obama.

[ChuckD]

The man responsible for the Bush Presidency and everything that sprang from it.

[boutons_]

Maybe some Dems remember the mortal damage Nader did to Gore in 2000, delivering the WH to criminals.

[Ignignokt]

Maybe some Dems remember the mortal damage Nader did to Gore in 2000, delivering the WH to criminals.


Quit being a sore pussy bitch. Ross perot took 19 percent from GHWB.

[whottt]

Maybe some Dems remember the mortal damage Nader did to Gore in 2000, delivering the WH to criminals.



How many Dems remember that their visionary leader, one Michael Moore, endorsed that same Ralph Nader...in that same election.


He also played a role in why you guys didn't win in 04.

[ChumpDumper]

Ralph Nader is running for President.
Should John Edwards not be selected for VP, my vote will go for Nader.

:smokin


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

He's not very smart and neither are you.

[xrayzebra]

I am so happy for you SA210. Now your life will be complete
again.

[SA210]

He's not very smart and neither are you.
I disagree with you, and dissapointed by your statement. John Edwards was my choice, and the current candidates running STOLE his issues that they are running on, flat out. Nader represents more of what I believe than the other 3 phony candidates. If John Edwards is someones VEEP candidate, then I will vote for that ticket, whether it be phony Obama or Clinton.

But if not, it is my right as an American to vote for who I choose, and not for what society tells me to do. I think it wouldn't be smart for me to vote for something against my principles. I'm not sold on Obama just cause the media chose him and thousands of people are fooled that he's the next JFK or RFK or because it's the cool thing to do, or some other bologna like that. I don't think those people are smart.

[ChumpDumper]

So you like McCain.

That's cool, I'm fine with his being president too.

What if Obama chose Edwards as a running mate?

[Doc Jerome]

It is interesting to see how people rationalize a vote for someone that gets his kicks from being a footnote in history. It is the arrogance of privilege which compels Nader, not a call from patriots to save the country from social or political apathy. This is simply a case of a guy that takes himself too seriously.

Invariably, a vote for Nader only confirms what real power brokers already know. There is a significant percentage of the electorate that can be programmed to flip votes as a result of coding candidates, issues, and word phrases. It is particularly useful when they perceive the organized chaos with which they manipulate to be marginalized by some unforseen factor or convergence of circumstances. For them, Nader unwittingly is an attempt to neutralize those uncontrollable factors.

The country is at a crossroad of sorts. Sometimes what we see, is authentically real.





:fro

[Spuradicator]

There goes Obama's chance

[SA210]

So you like McCain.

That's cool, I'm fine with his being president too.

What if Obama chose Edwards as a running mate?
No, of course I don't like McCain.
And I said that I would vote for Edwards if he were to be anyone's running mate.

[ChumpDumper]

No, of course I don't like McCain.But you are voting for him.

[SA210]

But you are voting for him.
No, I am not. With respect, that is how You see it. I am voting for someone who best represents my beliefs. The button I press will not be McCains name.

Believe me, I am hoping everyday that Edwards is selected as Hillary's or copycat Obama's running mate. That's my first choice.

[ChumpDumper]

W is eternally grateful to Nader voters.

McCain thanks you in advance.

[SA210]

W is eternally grateful to Nader voters.

McCain thanks you in advance.
Or you could thank the corporate media for choosing our candidates for us. For deciding who gets coverage and who doesn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Thank Edwards for making his hair the only thing people remember about him.

http://cache.wonkette.com/politics/edwardscompact.jpg/edwardscompact.jpg

[SA210]

Thank Edwards for making his hair the only thing people remember about him.

http://cache.wonkette.com/politics/edwardscompact.jpg/edwardscompact.jpg
I see your one of the ones that bought into to it.

[ChumpDumper]

He's the one with the compact.

[whottt]

You guys act like it matters in Texas...


I may just vote for Nader in this next one for the hell of it. He's an authentic crackpot...

[SA210]

He's the one with the compact.

He's the one that came up with Obamas and Hillary's campaign issues and speeches before they did.

[possessed]

Thank Edwards for making his hair the only thing people remember about him.

http://cache.wonkette.com/politics/edwardscompact.jpg/edwardscompact.jpg
:princess

[ChuckD]

He's the one that came up with Obamas and Hillary's campaign issues and speeches before they did.
Well, of course Hillary wanted the hair issue. She's a woman.

[Heath Ledger]

Lets not rule out Huckabee, he still has a shot, if McCain falls over with a heart attack and dies. Good possibility probably about 70 percent chance.

[Extra Stout]

He's the one that came up with Obamas and Hillary's campaign issues and speeches before they did.
So, they're carrying on his ideas... but you're not going to vote for them?

Not that I mind; the more people with your mentality there are, the better the chance McCain wins in November.

[AFBlue]

So, they're carrying on his ideas... but you're not going to vote for them?

Not that I mind; the more people with your mentality there are, the better the chance McCain wins in November.

+1

[smeagol]

SA210 makes little sense

[SA210]

SA210 makes little sense
To someone with a closed-mind.

[SA210]

So, they're carrying on his ideas... but you're not going to vote for them?

Not that I mind; the more people with your mentality there are, the better the chance McCain wins in November.
Just because they stole his speeches and issues and are running on them doesn't mean they will actually act on them.

[Mr. Peabody]

Just because they stole his speeches and issues and are running on them doesn't mean they will actually act on them.

Did you apply that same cynicism when considering Edwards' platform?

[AFBlue]

Just because they stole his speeches and issues and are running on them doesn't mean they will actually act on them.

What did Edwards offer that either of the two candidates won't bring?

All three of their policies were virtually identical, so why are you willing to essentially cast your vote anti-democrat if you believe in their ideals?

Like ExtraStout said, I could care less because you're helping McCain, but I'm just curious as to your logic.

[SA210]

Did you apply that same cynicism when considering Edwards' platform?
Obama's a fake. No way around it.

[Mr. Peabody]

Obama's a fake. No way around it.

Right, but you know for certain that Edwards was going to have a populist agenda after the election, fight the corporations, and alleviate poverty because.....? Let's face it, he hasn't always walked the walk (to put it nicely).


Edwards's populist message evolves
Fight for the poor not a hallmark of his Senate career

By Scott Helman and Matt Negrin, Globe Correspondent | January 7, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Buoyed by his second-place finish in Iowa, John Edwards has brought his populist, combative, and fiercely anticorporate message to New Hampshire, demanding sweeping changes in healthcare, trade, and income distribution.

"This fight is deeply personal to me," he said in Saturday night's Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College. "I've been engaged in it my whole life, to fight for the middle class, to fight against powerful special interests. And it is a fight I will wage on behalf of the American people as president of the United States and win, as I have for 54 years."

But an examination of Edwards's record shows that his positions on leading issues, his rhetoric on the campaign trail, and his approach to solving the country's problems have evolved in significant ways since his presidential bid in 2004 and his tenure as a North Carolina senator from 1998 to 2004.

Edwards has made fighting poverty a signature issue of his campaign, using even more urgent language than he did in 2004, when he famously talked about "two Americas" - one prospering, another falling behind.

Edwards, however, was not known as an outspoken champion for the poor during his six years as a senator, and his campaign could point to no major bills in that regard that he authored and got passed into law. He did help push a patients' bill of rights and he joined other Democrats in Congress in backing proposed increases in the minimum wage.

But his fierce condemnation of rapacious corporations today stands in contrast to the more moderate voice he has been in the past.

Speaking to chief executives at the Fortune Global Forum in November 2002, Edwards said, "Nothing is more important to our economy than the success of the people in this room - your success in leading companies, in building wealth for your shareholders, in creating jobs for millions of Americans."

Edwards said in the same speech that widening income disparities were "just plain wrong" and that corporate tax loopholes should be closed, but he also told executives that they could not be blamed for "taking aggressive advantage of legal holes in our tax law.

"Doing the most you can under the law to create profit for your shareholders is your job," he said.

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said in an e-mail that Edwards has never taken money from Washington lobbyists or political action committees, and that his fight against special interests "isn't an election-year conversion," and is something he mentioned in his 1998 Senate race.

"He has been fighting corporate greed all of his life and winning," Schultz said. "This fight is personal, from the gut, and will mean real change in Washington when he's in the White House."

On the campaign trail, Edwards has been highly critical of free trade policies, standing with many of his union backers in arguing that free trade has severely damaged American jobs and wages. But while in the Senate, Edwards voted for two such controversial measures that labor opposed on the very same grounds.

In 2000, he voted for permanent, normalized trade relations with China, which gave American businesses access to China's huge market, but which labor and other opponents said would hurt domestic manufacturing. Edwards has called the vote a blunder. He also voted, in 2002, for a bill giving President Bush broad authority to negotiate trade agreements. Edwards says he regrets that vote, too.

Edwards has disavowed other major votes as well. In 2001, he joined 81 other senators in voting for bankruptcy legislation making it more difficult for consumers to clear debt. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who dropped out of the presidential race last week after a poor showing in Iowa, has attacked Edwards for his vote, saying it belied his stated commitment to fighting for the middle class.
....

Edwards's approach to policy-making has evolved as well, as he has grown far more confrontational than the candidate whose sunny disposition, both as a presidential contender and eventual running mate, was a hallmark of the 2004 race.

He often, for example, casts rival Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, as hopelessly naive for being willing to let drug companies and insurance companies participate in negotiations over healthcare. "That is a complete fantasy," Edwards said last week in Iowa. "The only way we're going to get their power away is we're going to have to take their power away."

In February of last year, however, when Edwards was asked by a writer on the liberal blog MyDD.com about the role of business, labor, healthcare groups, and doctors in the healthcare debate, he said, "I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation. You want to make the system work for everybody."

Edwards's campaign insists that a focus on inconsistencies in his record misses the larger arc of a career spent representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporations, winning accolades from major labor groups even though he came from a right-to-work state, and, in the years between his presidential campaigns, creating an academic center to study ways to reverse poverty.

But compared with 2004, when he was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, his rhetoric has escalated considerably.

His shift in tone may have helped him win over some Democrats this cycle. Indeed, his second-place finish in Iowa over Senator Hillary Clinton and his continued viability as a candidate bear that out.

But the more confrontational tone has also turned off some voters who preferred the John Edwards they knew in 2004.

Denise Hawks, a 49-year-old donor relations specialist from Des Moines, said she was with Edwards four years ago, but went with Obama this year, in part because of Edwards's transformation into an angrier, more strident candidate. If he was such a fighter, she asked, where was he when Republican operatives helped sink the Democrats' 2004 presidential hopes with their attack ads?

"Four years too late," Hawks said. "They were asleep at the wheel."

[SA210]

Monday, February 25, 2008; Page A04

Top Obama Flip-Flops


1. Special interests - In January, the Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Edwards+(Politician)?tid=informline) as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support

2. Public financing -Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party?tid=informline) opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Cuba?tid=informline) embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Miami?tid=informline) in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Senate?tid=informline) in January 2004, Obama told Illinois (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Illinois?tid=informline) college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html

[SA210]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/06/obama-copies-edwards-lin_n_59312.html

Senator Barack Obama appears to be taking his lines from rival Democratic candidate Senator John Edwards. On Saturday during a debate over whether candidates would take lobbyists' money, Senator Edwards asked an audience of 1,000 plus bloggers and netroots activists at the YearlyKos Presidential Forum: "How many people in this audience have a Washington lobbyist working for you?"
See Edwards ask the question at the end of this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isi6c2s353c

Then on Sunday, Obama appeared to have a little 'amnesia' and used Edwards' line (http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2007/08/obama-riffs-on-clintons-lobbyist-money.html) in Nevada.
"I don't mind lobbyists having a seat at the table, I just don't want them to buy all the chairs. I want them to be part of the discussion where citizens also are part of the process. . . How many people here have a federal lobbyist?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_borrows_f.html

Obama borrows from Edwards

By Sasha Issenberg, Globe Staff
NASHUA, N.H. -- After beating John Edwards in Iowa on Thursday, Barack Obama has decided to join him -- repeatedly poaching his opponent's themes, language, and even jokes.

"We shouldn't just be respecting wealth in this country -- we should be respecting work," Obama told an overflow crowd in a high-school gym today.

Edwards's 2004 presidential campaign was centered around the idea that the Bush administration had launched a "war on work" through tax cuts that offer incentives for investment over labor. "Hard work should be valued in this country, so we're going to reward work, not just wealth," Edwards said in accepting his party’s vice-presidential nomination at the Democratic’ convention in Boston. In this campaign, he has sharpened his populist rhetoric, railing against greedy corporate CEOs who are waging war on working people and the middle class.

Since arriving in New Hampshire Friday, Obama has borrowed Edwards's favorite verb by bragging that he had "fought" as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer, and conceding that "insurance companies and drug companies will not give up their profits" -- which Edwards asserts repeatedly to ridicule Obama's talk of conciliation. Obama repeatedly invoked those interests, as well as "big oil and big insurance," common villains in Edwards speeches.

For months, Obama has been telling crowds, "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

Edwards gave a similar spin to his short political resume when he announced his candidacy in September 2003, declaring, "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change it."

The two candidates share a common strategist -- David Axelrod, the mastermind of Obama '08, helped launch Edwards '04 –- and now a common goal of standing as the reformist outsider against Hillary Clinton.

Even a new Obama laugh line -- joking about pharmaceutical ads that "have all these people running around in the fields and stuff" -- evokes an anecdotal staple of Edwards's 2004 "Two Americas" stump speech used to ridicule the marketing budgets of pharmaceutical companies.

"I love the ads," Edwards said then. "Buy their medicine, take it and the next day you and your spouse will be skipping through the fields."

Obama wins the biggest response when he punches up the Edwards observation with a slyly racy kicker. After observing that the ads are so vague they do not identify the drugs' function, Obama jokes, "Actually, I know what one of them does."

[Mr. Peabody]

Monday, February 25, 2008; Page A04

Top Obama Flip-Flops




Ok . . . so you've yet to answer my question about how Edwards is the more authentic of the two? I think you established the "but he did it too" defense. However, for someone who keeps saying everyone but John Edwards is fake, you haven't shown anything to support such an assertion.

[whottt]

Personally I agree that Obama is a fake...he's just a typical politician. He's not really a typical African American either...but a politican to the core.


That's not that big of a deal...it can be a lot worse.



But of the ones that are the dyed in the wool politcians, the ones that always tell the poor they won't be poor if they elect them, are the worst ones to me...absolute worst. In any country...

That's the big lie. The unconcionable lie...

[SA210]

Edwards says Obama using stolen ideas

By Sam Youngman Posted: 10/03/07 07:41 PM [ET]

Former Sen. John Edwards’s (D-N.C.) campaign widened its sights Tuesday to include Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and his foreign policy speech commemorating the five-year anniversary of his first speech against the Iraq war.

Echoing criticisms lodged by surrogates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) earlier in the year, Edwards’s campaign charged that Obama was complicit in prolonging the war by voting in favor of several war funding bills since coming to the Senate.

“Sen. Obama likes to talk about his speech on Iraq years ago, but the truth is he did support past funding requests that only helped prolong this war,” an Edwards spokeswoman, Colleen Murray, said in an e-mail. “The time has come for Sen. Obama to lead and use every tool available to him as a senator and help ensure that this war is not funded again without a firm deadline. For John Edwards, the choice is very simple. It’s time for Congress to stand up to President Bush and make the message very clear — ‘No timeline, no funding. No excuses.’ ”

The criticisms represent an apparent change in strategy for the Edwards campaign. Thus far this year it has directed most of its fire at Clinton’s campaign.

Edwards’s campaign also blasted Obama for parroting the former senator in a foreign policy speech he gave Tuesday in which he said he wanted to work towards ending nuclear proliferation. They said the senator has followed Edwards on a number of issues this campaign year, including healthcare, poverty and now nuclear proliferation.

“If you need any more proof that John Edwards is shaping the race for the Democratic nomination, you don’t need to look any further than Senator Obama, who has followed Edwards’s lead on healthcare, poverty and, today, eliminating nuclear weapons,” Murray said in an e-mail to The Hill. “Next thing you know, he’ll be rooting for the Tar Heels.” :lol

Edwards first addressed the issue of nuclear proliferation in speeches to the Council on Foreign Relations in May, then again during a speech on counterterrorism in September.

Obama noted Edwards’s dismay with the timing and language of the healthcare plans during last month’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire.

“I think John deserves credit for his proposal,” Obama said. “I know that he feels that he put out his plan first. You know, Harry Truman put something out 60 years ago for universal healthcare. I wrote about it in a book that I wrote last year, a plan very similar to John’s. The issue is not going to be who has these particular plans. It has to do with who can inspire and mobilize the American people to get it done and open up the process.”

In his speech Tuesday, Obama’s primary target likely was Clinton, but Edwards also voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, a vote for which he has since apologized.

“Some seek to rewrite history,” Obama said Tuesday, according to a transcript provided by the campaign. “They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy.

“But the Congress, the administration, the media and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: How can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?”

The Obama campaign took issue with both criticisms Edwards’s campaign lobbed Tuesday.

“Edwards joined many, including Ronald Reagan, who have said that we should seek a world with no nuclear weapons, but he did not lay out any policy for how he would get there,” Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an e-mail. “Obama has specific policies to move in the direction of the goal. That includes securing all loose nuclear materials around the world in his first term in office, seeking dramatic reductions in U.S.-Russian stockpiles, the goal of a global ban on fissile-material protection, and the goal of a global ban on intermediate range missiles.”

And Psaki was equally adamant in recalling the distinction between the two candidates’ positions on the war when the votes were being cast.

“While it may be politically expedient for some candidates to attempt to blur the lines, the American people should ask themselves — who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right and who got it wrong,” Psaki said. “If others want to defend their choice in 2002, they should do so. Sen. Obama opposed this war in Iraq when Washington’s conventional thinking supported it, and he is the only candidate with the right judgment and experience to lead this country.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/edwards-says-obama-using-stolen-ideas-2007-10-03.html

[Mr. Peabody]

I think there is a key passage that you didn't highlight.....


]

The two candidates share a common strategist -- David Axelrod, the mastermind of Obama '08, helped launch Edwards '04 –- and now a common goal of standing as the reformist outsider against Hillary Clinton.



You think this has something to do with the similarity of messages....? No, it can't possibly be that seemingly simple explanation.

[ChumpDumper]

Who would you vote for if Edwards endorsed Obama?

[whottt]

pimpo...I didn't hit the Ron Paul rally. I probably would have gone as it's interesting to go to those...but honestly, it's going to be a big anti-war crowd and I've heard everything they have to say and know where all those conversations will lead...it's a book I've read before many times.


Believe it or not I actually worked a fund raiser for the Green Party back in 98(I was mainly trying to get in this girl's pants)....I actually liked the movement then...in the pre 9/11 world...interesting people showed up for that...including Lance Armstrong, right after his combeback from cancer and right before he started on his run of 7 consecutive TDF's.

Yeap...ole Lance is a Green, or he was at one point...

I've also worked for both the Democratic and Republican parties of Texas back in the late 80's(did polls mainly)...

I usually will give any of them a try...but I'm not into the anti-war rallys right now(and that's basically what most of them are)....I got enough of that when I was working as a bondrunner for a politically minded attorney here in Austin.

[Holt's Cat]

Obama's a fake. No way around it.


And Edwards is the genuine article?



The one that is the most problematic is [John] Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.


link (http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/APC06/801170560/1036)

[Mr. Peabody]

Edwards says Obama using stolen ideas

By Sam Youngman Posted: 10/03/07 07:41 PM [ET]


Edwards’s campaign also blasted Obama for parroting the former senator in a foreign policy speech he gave Tuesday in which he said he wanted to work towards ending nuclear proliferation. They said the senator has followed Edwards on a number of issues this campaign year, including healthcare, poverty and now nuclear proliferation.



So Obama was copying Edwards when he co-sponsored the Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Initiative and got it through the Senate in 2006?

[Holt's Cat]

Monday, February 25, 2008; Page A04

Top Obama Flip-Flops


1. Special interests - In January, the Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Edwards+(Politician)?tid=informline) as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support

2. Public financing -Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party?tid=informline) opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Cuba?tid=informline) embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Miami?tid=informline) in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Senate?tid=informline) in January 2004, Obama told Illinois (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Illinois?tid=informline) college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html

Don't worry. Edwards has him beat in spades.

[SA210]

Ok . . . so you've yet to answer my question about how Edwards is the more authentic of the two? I think you established the "but he did it too" defense. However, for someone who keeps saying everyone but John Edwards is fake, you haven't shown anything to support such an assertion.
You have admitted to liking John Edwards and I believe insinuated that you might've voted for him had Obama not been running if I'm not mistaken. So I guess you're flip flopping on your beliefs of the good man you believed Edwards to be...????

I've been answering your question. It's not even debatable, the fact, that Obama has stolen from Edwards from the start. Obama has followed John's lead and takes the credit for it. That tells me who is more authentic. And obviously the unions also believed John to be more authentic before he dropped out of the race.

Bill was right, his whole campaign is nothing but a fairytale, I would add, a fairytale sold to the American public by the corporate media, to the stupidity and gullability of many Americans who simply want to vote for someone cause it's the cool thing to do. The media told us that he gave great speeches enough times so people bought it.

This guy is no RFK, MLK, or JFK and not even close. He's boring, does nothing but studder because he's trying so hard to remember how to best deliver someone elses lines. He hasn't been tested and has been given a free ride by the media, because it gives them ratings. There is something seriously wrong with this picture. He criticised John for union ads backing him but doesn't mind having their backing for himself?

The guy is a complete phony and the only "hope' that I would vote for him would be if John were his running mate. That is the only way. And again, that vote would be for John Edwards.

[whottt]

I don't get the appeal of Edwards...but he evidentally impresses some people...including Gregg Popovich.


To me he's a typical attorney.


Feh...all these candidates are lackluster. Who am I kidding...


There's not even one I really feel passionately enough about to hate.

[Mr. Peabody]

pimpo...I didn't hit the Ron Paul rally. I probably would have gone as it's interesting to go to those...but honestly, it's going to be a big anti-war crowd and I've heard everything they have to say and know where all those conversations will lead...it's a book I've read before many times.


Believe it or not I actually worked a fund raiser for the Green Party back in 98(I was mainly trying to get in this girl's pants)....I actually liked the movement then...in the pre 9/11 world...interesting people showed up for that...including Lance Armstrong, right after his combeback from cancer and right before he started on his run of 7 consecutive TDF's.

Yeap...ole Lance is a Green, or he was at one point...



I went to a Green Party event in 1999, mostly to see Ralph Nader speak. At the event, there were these little preppy guys among the horde of Naderites and at one point they held up a sign saying "Nader is an Enviro-Nazi." They looked like they were getting a kick out of their little prank until they almost got their ass kicked by some rather large goateed hemp wearing guys who no doubt reeked of pachouli.

[Holt's Cat]

As for Nader running, so what? Since when did it become a bad thing for there to be more choices for voters?

[SA210]

I think there is a key passage that you didn't highlight.....



You think this has something to do with the similarity of messages....? No, it can't possibly be that seemingly simple explanation.
So you admit that Obama is not using his own lines. I see. And it's also funny how John was talking about "change" in this election before Obama, but yet Obama got credit for using the word. :lol

[SA210]

Who would you vote for if Edwards endorsed Obama?
I'd vote for the ticket with Edwards on it.

[whottt]

I went to a Green Party event in 1999, mostly to see Ralph Nader speak. At the event, there were these little preppy guys among the horde of Naderites and at one point they held up a sign saying "Nader is an Enviro-Nazi." They looked like they were getting a kick out of their little prank until they almost got their ass kicked by some rather large goateed hemp wearing guys who no doubt reeked of pachouli.


Yeah...it's a weird crowd. Naturally it was a big startup movement in Austin.


But you know...9/11 really did change America...War and Terrorism was so far out of the minds of people then...including myself. Back then the environment was my #1 concern in the world and I liked what the Greens were trying to do...I wasn't really a Green, but I did like a lot of what they had to say back then. It's amazing what a difference a decade can make.

[whottt]

And FWIW...I don't think the Greens(if that's who Nader is still with) will have near the impact in this election that they had in the 2000 election...different world now.

[Holt's Cat]

So Obama is now an inauthentic gay black plagiarizing somali muslim without great hair?

[PixelPusher]

So you admit that Obama is not using his own lines. I see. And it's also funny how John was talking about "change" in this election before Obama, but yet Obama got credit for using the word. :lol
You seem utterly fixated on Obama using other peoples lines, but nonplussed about Edward's voting record (as pointed out by Peabody and Holt's Cat).

For you, apparently, words really are more important than actions.

[Holt's Cat]

I find it amusing that somehow Obama is the least "authentic" when compared to Her Majesty and Breck Girl. Just like a vocal minority of Republicans are trying to sabotage their most electable candidate, such is the same for the Dems.

[Holt's Cat]

You seem utterly fixated on Obama using other peoples lines, but nonplussed about Edward's voting record (as pointed out by Peabody and Holt's Cat).

For you, apparently, words really are more important than actions.


Let me see if I can condense this into its purest and most timely form...

Words matter. Votes don't.

[SA210]

Obama by the Numbers: Twice-Told Tales, and Nine in a Row


By Dana Milbank

Wednesday, February 20, 2008; A02

HOUSTON, Feb. 19 In the lavatory aboard Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline)'s campaign plane, a cartoon shows the Clintons attempting to roast Obama in a cauldron. Bill stirs, Hillary adds salt and pepper. But Obama is smiling, and all that emerges from the pot are bubbles labeled "Hope."
For Obama, life seems to be imitating art lately. The Clintons in the past couple of weeks have done all they could to cook him up into an airy souffle, a candidate so light in substance that he collapses when speared. They exposed him as a guy who copies others' speeches and makes lofty pledges only to break them.

And yet: The Obama Souffle continues to rise.

Obama scored another convincing victory Tuesday in the Wisconsin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Wisconsin?tid=informline) primary, bringing his tally to nine straight wins in the past two weeks. The victories gave him a very real lead in delegates and fresh momentum approaching the March 4 primaries in Ohio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ohio?tid=informline) and here in Texas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Texas?tid=informline).

"Houston, I think we've achieved liftoff," Obama told the capacity crowd of more than 18,000 at the Toyota Center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Toyota+Center?tid=informline), home of the Houston Rockets (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Houston+Rockets?tid=informline). They responded with roars that forced people on the arena floor to plug their ears.

A week of news that could have killed a lesser candidate only made Obama stronger. Double-teamed by Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline) and likely Republican opponent John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline), he was portrayed as a man of big words but modest deeds. "To encourage a country with only rhetoric," McCain said last week, "is not a promise of hope, it's a platitude."

Obama made things worse for himself. First came word that he was backing down on his promise to seek public financing in the general election if the Republican agreed to do so -- infuriating the good-government crowd that had adored him. Then, on Saturday night, Obama responded to Clinton's criticism by borrowing, nearly word for word and without attribution, a favorite passage from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Deval+Patrick?tid=informline). "Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words." :dramaquee

On Tuesday morning, the Clinton campaign publicized another case of Obama apparently appropriating Patrick's words: a quote from last year ("I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me; I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations") that was strikingly similar to one that Patrick uttered a year earlier ("I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me; I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations").

Still, Obama seemed to borrow anew on Tuesday at an outdoor rally in San Antonio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/San+Antonio?tid=informline) -- this time from former foe John Edwards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Edwards+(Politician)?tid=informline). Criticizing pharmaceutical companies' ads, Obama joked: "You know those ads where people are running around the fields, you know, they're smiling, you don't know what the drug is for?"

Compare that with this staple of Edwards's 2004 stump speech: "I love the ads. Buy their medicine, take it, and the next day you and your spouse will be skipping through the fields."

The likely nexus: top Obama adviser David Axelrod (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Axelrod?tid=informline), who played a similar role for Patrick in 2006 and for Edwards in 2004. That may explain the list of lines Obama lifted from Edwards -- whose campaign compiled a list of the offenses before the candidate dropped out of the race.

Here's Obama's announcement speech in February 2007: "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

Compare that with Edwards's 2003 announcement speech: "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."

"We need a president not afraid to use the word 'union,' " Edwards told a steelworker audience in July 2007.

"We need a president . . . who is not afraid to mention unions," Obama said a month later. Edwards, accepting the party's vice presidential nomination in 2004, said, "Hard work should be valued in this country, so we're going to reward work, not just wealth." Obama, in turn, has been heard to say, "We shouldn't just be respecting wealth in this country, we should be respecting work."
Whatever we should be respecting, Obama had a ready answer for the questions about his originality: another big primary win.

Just after 5 p.m. Central time yesterday, early exit polls pointed to a victory for Obama in Wisconsin. Ten minutes later, his campaign sent around an Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Associated+Press?tid=informline) article seeking to raise the stakes of its likely victory: "Wisconsin is almost the kind of state Hillary Rodham Clinton would have invented to win a Democratic presidential primary. . . . A poor performance there Tuesday would raise big questions about her candidacy."

A couple of hours after that, Obama was at Toyota Center, waiting backstage for the networks to announce his victory. On the floor, a woman in a too-tight shirt danced about the stage and led painful-to-the-eardrum cheers of "Fired up!" and "Ready to go!"

Axelrod, the Obama strategist who authored many of the phrases the candidate borrowed from Edwards and Patrick, preceded the senator to the floor. On the jumbo screen, the campaign played a music video by the Black Eyed Peas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Black+Eyed+Peas?tid=informline)' "will.i.am (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Will.I.Am?tid=informline)." Its title, "Yes We Can," is a signature slogan of the Obama campaign -- and before that, of Deval Patrick, not to mention César Chávez and Bob the Builder.

A chant of "Yes, we can" filled the arena, and Obama, emerging underneath a banner honoring basketball great Hakeem Olajuwon, enjoyed a reception the Houston Rockets would envy. "The American people have spoken out, and they've said we need to move in a new direction," Obama told the arena.

Whoever first uttered the words that followed, it didn't much matter: On the arena floor, they were drowned out by deafening cheers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902342_pf.html
-------------------------------------------------------------

A country fooled...

[PixelPusher]

Let me see if I can condense this into its purest and most timely form...

Words matter. Votes don't.
A lot of that going around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGpnGKnbks8

[Mr. Peabody]

You have admitted to liking John Edwards and I believe insinuated that you might've voted for him had Obama not been running if I'm not mistaken. So I guess you're flip flopping on your beliefs of the good man you believed Edwards to be...????



How am I flip-flopping? I do like Edwards, but I also recognize that he is not perfect. His '08 message didn't match his actions in the Senate. I still thought he was a better candidate than Hillary and for the most part, I felt his heart was in the right place. And I do think he may have been more progressive as a President than he was as a Senator, but I have nothing to base that on and frankly, neither do you.

Also, I did say that if Obama wasn't in the race, I would have supported Edwards and that's true. Hell, I supported him in '04. I don't know why it has to be so absolute. As if because I support Obama, I must hate Edwards or vice-versa. Both have a similar message on the issues I care about.

This election I just didn't buy the anti-establishment, angry rhetoric from Edwards. I liked him better in '04. It's as if he tried to assume the Howard Dean mantle from '04. Maybe it wasn't a bad strategy, as it almost got Dean the nomination (save for the "Dean Scream"). That's not to say I think he was a bad candidate or not to be trusted. I just liked Obama more in this election.

[PixelPusher]

^:lol SA210 just steamrolls along, utterly oblivious to question asked of her, just like the Hillary supporters in that youtube vid.

[ChumpDumper]

So what do you think Obama will do once he's in office?

[SA210]

You seem utterly fixated on Obama using other peoples lines, but nonplussed about Edward's voting record (as pointed out by Peabody and Holt's Cat).

For you, apparently, words really are more important than actions.
Well, now that we agree that Obama steals other people material, you wanna talk about how Obama kept voting for the war that he was against???

[SA210]

So what do you think Obama will do once he's in office?
Who knows, he hasn't been straight so far.

[ChumpDumper]

Who knows, he hasn't been straight so far.No, that guy failed the lie detector test yesterday.

[Holt's Cat]

Edwards claimed that his fight against poverty led him to go to work for a large asset management firm based on that dreaded Wall Street.

:guffaw

Authentic.

[SA210]

No, that guy failed the lie detector test yesterday.
Heathe must be sad.

[Mr. Peabody]

A lot of that going around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGpnGKnbks8

Yeah, I just watched that on HBO tonight. I would say it's outrageous, but I am sure that I've fallen for "campaign-speak" this year from one candidate or another. I've done my best to research my candidate, but these campaigns are nothing but BS generators and it can get hard to sift through it all. The mainstream media doesn't help with their constant focus on non-issues like who's had an affair, who wore what, who is a closeted lesbian....

[Holt's Cat]

What I don't get is you have a charismatic Democratic candidate, the first since '96. One who is running on a rather "progressive" (by any definition of the label in today's American politics) program, yet is drawing in independents and disaffected Republicans and some Democrats are complaining about this in favor of a Hillary Clinton who repels independent and Republican support about as much as her husband's libido.

What's even more ironic is that it was the Clintons who perfected the art of campaigning progressive yet governing as the most conservative Democrats since Woodrow Wilson.

You have an economy in the tank, a country disillusioned with the current administration which happens to be led by a member of the opposing party, and you are trying to screw it up?

Hey, fine by me.

[Mr. Peabody]

So what do you think Obama will do once he's in office?

I think it depends on how he wins the presidency. If he pulls off a huge victory, then I think he gets more of his agenda pushed through and he can really change mindset of the country (ala Reagan in the 80's). If he gets the blue states, plus Ohio and Florida victory, I doubt things will change much.

I think much of the constipation in government the last 20 years or so is in part due to the fact that no president won overwhelmingly in any election. Clinton never got a majority, while Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and did the red states, plus Florida and Ohio scenario in 2004. No one really ever got a mandate from the electorate.

[Mr. Peabody]

What I don't get is you have a charismatic Democratic candidate, the first since '96. One who is running on a rather "progressive" (by any definition of the label in today's American politics) program, yet is drawing in independents and disaffected Republicans and some Democrats are complaining about this in favor of a Hillary Clinton who repels independent and Republican support about as much as her husband's libido.

What's even more ironic is that it was the Clintons who perfected the art of campaigning progressive yet governing as the most conservative Democrats since Woodrow Wilson.

You have an economy in the tank, a country disillusioned with the current administration which happens to be led by a member of the opposing party, and you are trying to screw it up?

Hey, fine by me.

[PixelPusher]

So what do you think Obama will do once he's in office?
I honestly don't know. The difference is, I do know what all the other candidates would and would not do.

[Holt's Cat]

January 2009 will mark 20 years that either a Bush or a Clinton resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For that reason alone either Obama or McCain works for me. Enough with these familial dynasties. I thought the opposition to such rule was something on which this country was founded.

[Holt's Cat]

And if Obama is hiding anything in this election, it's that he's more liberal than his program.

[whottt]

January 2009 will mark 20 years that either a Bush or a Clinton resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For that reason alone either Obama or McCain works for me. Enough with these familial dynasties. I thought the opposition to such rule was something on which this country was founded.


Obama may not have a royal bloodline but he's definitely picked up schmaltz quick enough and fast enough to make Ted Kennedy jealous...


McCain is basically a silverspoon with a little more credibility than most of them but he's not long on common sense, in face he might have less common sense than anyone in this election, and frankly I just don't think the dude is all there.....he's got one redeeming quality to me and that's that he won't pull us out of Iraq.


All in all...a shitty batch.


At least I knew W was a dumbass with a purpose and clear vision of what he wanted to do...I don't get that from any of these guys.


None of them seem to be willing to stand on their own principals, xcept Ron Paul(and Nader) and scratch what I said earlier about McCain having the least common sense of anyone in this election...that'd be Paul. And all of the rest of them are basically trying to say anything to get elected.


That's why there's no clear winner left...it's not due to the strength of the crop...but the weakness.


I'm not saying a Bush or Clinton would be better...but I seriously doubt they'd be any worse.




Weak batch....

[Ignignokt]

pimpo...I didn't hit the Ron Paul rally. I probably would have gone as it's interesting to go to those...but honestly, it's going to be a big anti-war crowd and I've heard everything they have to say and know where all those conversations will lead...it's a book I've read before many times.


Believe it or not I actually worked a fund raiser for the Green Party back in 98(I was mainly trying to get in this girl's pants)....I actually liked the movement then...in the pre 9/11 world...interesting people showed up for that...including Lance Armstrong, right after his combeback from cancer and right before he started on his run of 7 consecutive TDF's.

Yeap...ole Lance is a Green, or he was at one point...

I've also worked for both the Democratic and Republican parties of Texas back in the late 80's(did polls mainly)...

I usually will give any of them a try...but I'm not into the anti-war rallys right now(and that's basically what most of them are)....I got enough of that when I was working as a bondrunner for a politically minded attorney here in Austin.

[Nbadan]

Message To Ralph Nader...


JIFEceopAUI

[Mr. Peabody]

January 2009 will mark 20 years that either a Bush or a Clinton resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For that reason alone either Obama or McCain works for me. Enough with these familial dynasties. I thought the opposition to such rule was something on which this country was founded.

During the California Democratic debate, someone raised the point that a Bush or a Clinton has been on a general election ticket since 1980. People that are younger than 30 or 31 years old have had a Bush or a Clinton on every ticket during their lifetime.

[Extra Stout]

Sometimes you get immature whiners in political campaigns, who pout and throw a fit when their candidate doesn't get the nomination, and vote third-party out of spite.

[Holt's Cat]

Is there anything Hillary Clinton's campaign has thrown at Obama that wouldn't give Republicans pause?

[fyatuk]

And FWIW...I don't think the Greens(if that's who Nader is still with) will have near the impact in this election that they had in the 2000 election...different world now.

He ran as a Green 1996 and 2000, and as an idependent/reform party in 2004.

The Green Party (with Nader as candidate) and the Reform Party (with Perot) are the closest minor parties have every come to getting to the defined percentages to receive federal funding matching and being invited to the debates.

[Holt's Cat]

I guess Americans like the duopoly that owns their politics.

[Ignignokt]

I guess Americans like the duopoly that owns their politics.


You're the one chastising SA210's idea of voting for nader.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ross perot took 19 percent from GHWB.

but Clinton was actually a good president

[Ignignokt]

but Clinton was actually a good president


for the Republican party who tookover both houses under his watch.

Aren't you missing quality public funded childrens entertainment like Lambchop.

[SA210]

Sometimes you get immature whiners in political campaigns, who pout and throw a fit when their candidate doesn't get the nomination, and vote third-party out of spite.

Unfortunately for you, in this case, it's just the fact that the other candidates suck.

[Holt's Cat]

You're the one chastising SA210's idea of voting for nader.


Actually, I'm not. I'm ridiculing his love of John Edwards. Figure it out.

[SA210]

Union spends heavily for Obama in primaries

Published: February 26, 2008

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/26/america/26union.php



The powerful Service Employees International Union — whose local chapters helped John Edwards in the Iowa caucus — is now pouring cash and manpower into helping Senator Barack Obama in the Texas and Ohio primaries.

The union reported in federal filings that it had spent $1.4 million in the two states on Obama's behalf, an effort that immediately came under sharp attack from the campaign of his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Clinton campaign accused Obama of hypocrisy, saying he had criticized Edwards in Iowa for receiving similar support. Obama called that support "underhanded" and deserving of "further scrutiny."
Obama has denounced special-interest money and the Democrats who have taken it, a point the Clinton campaign emphasized in a conference call with reporters.

"When it was in Obama's interest to criticize Edwards over outside spending, he did so," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman. "Now when it is in his interest to remain silent, he is."

In a statement, the Obama campaign said, "Senator Obama has long said that he would prefer those who want to support him to do it directly through the campaign." It did not say whether it would ask the union to halt its effort. :rolleyes

Obama received the union's backing earlier this month and has long maintained ties to the group. He sought its endorsement, and its main Web page is filled with photos of him and videos of his speeches.

Over the weekend, the union reported spending the money in Texas and Ohio to pay for door-to-door canvassers, a direct-mail campaign and a phone bank. The expenses are independent and not coordinated with the Obama campaign, which would be illegal.

"SEIU members are waging an unprecedented effort to mobilize their co-workers and communities to elect Barack Obama," said Anna Burger, the union's secretary-treasurer. "We are committed to bringing all of our resources to bear to ensure he is our next president."

Besides the $1.4 million, the union can spend additional money, which does not have to be publicly reported, on pro-Obama efforts that are directed solely at its own members. The union said it had 150,000 members in the states with primaries coming up, with 30,000 in Ohio alone.

In a news release last Friday, the union said it would wage "an extensive multimillion-dollar ground and air campaign" on behalf of Obama. Its members will appear in pro-Obama television advertisements in Texas and Ohio and "thousands" of members will take time off from work or volunteer on efforts to help Obama, the union said.

The 1.9 million-member union also spent $240,000 for phone banks and get-out-the-vote efforts among union members in the final days before the Wisconsin primary, just two days after it endorsed Obama.

The union's political action committee had $31 million in cash-on-hand at the end of 2007.

In the days before the Iowa caucuses, when Obama had no support from outside groups, he criticized Edwards and Clinton for the backing that they were getting from unions and other outside groups.

The sharpest attacks were aimed at Edwards after Alliance for a New America, a group financed in part by the service employees union and run by a former Edwards campaign aide, spent $1.5 million on television spots praising Edwards.

Besides the money spent by the service employees union, about $1 million will be spent by the United Food and Commercial Workers union for pro-Obama advertisements, according to the Clinton campaign. Obama has also received fresh support from PowerPac.org, a California group that has spent around $740,000 on a pro-Obama effort.

[xrayzebra]

but Clinton was actually a good president

He was, when? I must have been out of the country that
week.

[Extra Stout]

Unfortunately for you, in this case, it's just the fact that the other candidates suck.
Yes, I agree that the Democrats suck. I'm just enjoying your getting your panties all in a wad because your pretty boy didn't win. Pretty much any of these Democrats that would get elected would follow pretty much the same misguided agenda, but you have this man-crush on the Breck Girl, so your world is broken now.

I do wonder... is your behavior all out of petty churlishness... or might you have some latent racial animus in there too? Your vitriol seems to be focused on the black man, rather than the white woman who still has a shot to win.

[SA210]

Yes, I agree that the Democrats suck. I'm just enjoying your getting your panties all in a wad because your pretty boy didn't win. Pretty much any of these Democrats that would get elected would follow pretty much the same misguided agenda, but you have this man-crush on the Breck Girl, so your world is broken now.

I do wonder... is your behavior all out of petty churlishness... or might you have some latent racial animus in there too? Your vitriol seems to be focused on the black man, rather than the white woman who still has a shot to win.
Conservatives have a thing for making homosexual insults or calling men "girls". I think it shows exactly how they might actually feel inside about themselves, very insecure.. Yea, I'm sure that's what it is.

And the cheap racial question is just ridiculous. You have no basis to wonder that, but you already know that. However I do wonder how you feel about "mexicans".

You know the media purposely took Edwards out of the equation. That made it easier for you Republicans because John Edwards was the ONE candidate you really feared.

You can talk and talk and talk about haircuts and all the crap that doesn't matter, because the Repubs were scared of him, and if he had the same playing time as Obama and Hillary in the media, this would be a very different race. After the "haircut" and everything, he is the one who shaped the issues of this election. Calling him names doesn't change the fact that he woulda cleaned the conservatives clock 10 fold.

[ChumpDumper]

You know the media purposely took Edwards out of the equation.Not really. Hillary started out with much more name recognition and Obama created his own momentum with his public appearances.
That made it easier for you Republicans because John Edwards was the ONE candidate you really feared.McCain would absolutely love to be running against Edwards instead of Obama.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Oprah. Edwards should have worked on her.

[Extra Stout]

You can talk and talk and talk about haircuts and all the crap that doesn't matter, because the Repubs were scared of him, and if he had the same playing time as Obama and Hillary in the media, this would be a very different race.
With your powerless victim conspiracy mentality re: the media, you definitely fit in on the left. Edwards spent four years camped out in Iowa getting ready for that caucus, and still couldn't finish higher than second. The fact is, your boy just couldn't get enough people on the ground behind him, but rather than deal with that and move on, you throw a temper tantrum like a small child, and deal in conspiracy theories about the media, and whine about the unfairness of it all. You choose to live in a world where a guy who couldn't get any local traction in a state that was tailor-made to his alleged demographic wheelhouse somehow was going to clean the clock of the Republican candidate. I guess it's easier to live in the fabricated reality that fits your ideology than the inconvenient actual reality, huh? Maybe you and Dubya have more in common than you think? Or, more likely, you're a cousin to those insipid Paulbots, just further to the left. In any event, you're an easy target to mock. If only more Democrats actually were as stupid as you are, McCain would be the favorite against the Obamessiah.

[SA210]

With your powerless victim conspiracy mentality re: the media, you definitely fit in on the left. Edwards spent four years camped out in Iowa getting ready for that caucus, and still couldn't finish higher than second. The fact is, your boy just couldn't get enough people on the ground behind him, but rather than deal with that and move on, you throw a temper tantrum like a small child, and deal in conspiracy theories about the media, and whine about the unfairness of it all. You choose to live in a world where a guy who couldn't get any local traction in a state that was tailor-made to his alleged demographic wheelhouse somehow was going to clean the clock of the Republican candidate. I guess it's easier to live in the fabricated reality that fits your ideology than the inconvenient actual reality, huh? Maybe you and Dubya have more in common than you think? Or, more likely, you're a cousin to those insipid Paulbots, just further to the left. In any event, you're an easy target to mock. If only more Democrats actually were as stupid as you are, McCain would be the favorite against the Obamessiah.
You've totally missed my point on the Edwards situation. You are dead wrong, but I shouldn't explain something to you when you have a one track mind. This is no tantrum by the way. But it's easy for you to say that cuz you feel you prove something when you say it and it makes you feel you are on higher ground, (insecurity?).

You're lost on what I'm saying or you purposely don't want to see it. Yes indeed, he woulda cleaned their clock. I don't usually call people names on here, but i am convinced that you are Stupid.

[fyatuk]

You know the media purposely took Edwards out of the equation. That made it easier for you Republicans because John Edwards was the ONE candidate you really feared.

That I seriously doubt. He's already shown he doesn't really connect with people as well as he theoretically should. I don't think he would have been much of a threat to the Republicans. Well, more of a threat than I think Hilary is just because not so many people hate him...


After the "haircut" and everything, he is the one who shaped the issues of this election. Calling him names doesn't change the fact that he woulda cleaned the conservatives clock 10 fold.

He did shape the issues for the Democrat primary. That about as big a contribution as you could have asked from him. It's not like his platform was HIS platform anyway. Like everyone else, he stole it from other people (some from Hilary when she was 1st Lady, some from Kucinich, etc), and then people stole it from him.

No way he would have clean the conservative's clock unless they put forth a horrid candidate. McCain would likely trounce him. It would have been interesting if it was Romney or Huckabee vs Edwards, and he'd probably beat any of the others by a fairly decent margin.

[xrayzebra]

God Bless Nader, he saved us from the Corvair. And he may save
us from Braka.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, Nader needs about 18,000 signatures to get on the Oregon ballot. I will be one of those signing. He didn't get in last presidential election for Oregon and Kerry won Oregon. It would be nice to balance Oregon a bit for the republicans since Oregon almost always goes wacky liberal.

Split the democrat vote

Get Nader on your ballots.

Now consider the larger picture of this. Most of us are unhappy with election wins under 50%. In 1992, Perot took 18% of the vote, making Clinton president. Many believe that Nader took enough votes to make Bush president both in 2000 and 2004. If the democrats lose again because of a 'spoiler' candidate, then maybe we can get the elections changed to run-off elections where the winner must have at least 50%+1 votes.

Both parties must support the idea for it to work. Then, the larger picture I see is libertarians and other parties can become better contenders. When people vote for their candidate rather than the lesser of two evils, we get far better politicians in the long run.

[xrayzebra]

^^Sounds like a good plan to me. I think maybe some of it
is already at work. I think in Texas many crossovers for Hussein
Obama that wont be there in November.

[ChumpDumper]

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEE

[xrayzebra]

You really ought to do something about that stutter. Really!

[Ocotillo]

Nader will not be a factor in this general election

Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me.

[ChumpDumper]

You really ought to do something about that stutter. Really!You really ought to do something about that bigotry. Really!