Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt was a weary and wistful Hillary Clinton who sat down with CNN's Wolf Blitzer and other network anchors for extended interviews in the middle of the day Wednesday. She knew that, no matter what she said, and how well she said it, it would not be enough.
Like the coronation march that her 2008 campaign was supposed to be, her latest gambit would be trumped by Barack Obama's juggernaut.
Yes, she had just been handed a face-saving landslide win by West Virginia Democrats, beating Obama by more than 2-1 in an honest-to-goodness swing state. But Clinton did not seem to be fighting very hard on a day when her senior campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, was disptached to Capitol Hill to reassure congressional supporter that the former frontrunner would remain in the race through June 3.
Clinton used her precious spotlight time to defend Obama as a friend of Israel, describe his supporters as people who thought he would be the best president and promised to "work my heart out for whoever our nominee is." Indeed, if she made news Wednesday, it was with a seeming show of openness to an as-yet-unoffered place on an Obama-led ticket. Clinton did not dismiss the vice-presidential talk – and she certainly did not resort to the old dig of suggesting she might have a place on her ticket for the senator from Illinois – she simply it was "premature" to talk about what she would be doing after her campaign was done.
Perhaps it was. But only by a few hours.
As Clinton's interviews were supposed to be dominating the evening news and talk programs on the cable networks, Barack Obama was again stepping on her moment.
Television screens filled with live images from Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Bruce Springsteen was singing "The Rising."
The crowd was cheering, "Yes we can!"
No one was thinking about West Virginia.
No one was thinking much about Hillary Clinton.
They were listening to John Edwards.
"The reason I am here in Grand Rapids tonight is that Democratic voters in America have made their choice and so have I," shouted the man who almost beat Barack Obama in the campaign-opening caucuses of Iowa and who, long after he quit campaigning, still pulled 7 percent of the vote in West Virginia.
Echoing the themes of a campaign that did not win him the nomination but that secured him a credibility – especially with the blue-collar voters who may well define the fall race – that made his the most sought-after endorsement of a campaign that is now done in all but the formalities.
Delivering that endorsement, and a dose of the populist appeal Obama still needs, Edwards came not to finish the primary race but to open the fall campaign. "There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two, and that man is Barack Obama," shouted Edwards.
Edwards stood next to Obama Wednesday night, basking in the applause of thousands of Michigan Democrats who were, for all practical purposes, cheering the end of the Clinton campaign. (And reminding the pundits that a Michigan delegation will be seated at the Democratic National Convention and will likely join in the "by-acclamation" nomination of Obama.)
Of course, John Edwards praised Hillary Clinton in Grand Rapids. "We are a stronger party because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat," the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president told a crowd that did not really want to hear it but offered a reasonable measure of tepid applause.
"What she has shown is strength and character… She cares deeply about the working families in this country," said Edwards. "She is a woman who in my judgment is made of steel. And she is a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done…"
But the truth is that Edwards was in Michigan to bury Hillary Clinton, at least as a presidential candidate.
"When this nomination battle is over, and it will be over soon, brothers and sisters, we will have a united Democratic party," Edwards declared.
The Edwards endorsement, delivered not in an upcoming primary state such as Kentucky or Oregon but in the contested former-primary state of Michigan, was not a primary endorsement. It was a positioning moment for a November race in which everyone – including the savvy senator from New York – knows that Barack Obama will be carrying the Democratic banner into competition with Republican John McCain.
"I will do whatever it takes" to elect the Democrat, said Clinton. Would Clinton like to be on that ticket? Probably.
Might she have some new competition? Absolutely.
No one missed the fact that Barack Obama and John Edwards looked right together. "They looked fantastic together," gushed Jill Zuckman, the Chicago Tribune's able political writer. "They looked like a ticket."
Even Obama seemed to notice.
"I haven't been seeing John as much," said the Illinois senator. "I forgot how good he is."
The soon-to-be nominee won't forget again.
Neither will Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE: Video of Edwards' speech below.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Oh NOW he shows up, huh?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2008 @ 7:48pm
Is Edwards considered a super delegate?
Posted by ACook at 05/14/2008 @ 7:53pm
Mask, Nichols really teed this one up high. Please knock it out of the park.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/14/2008 @ 7:58pm
Edwards is, indeed, a superdelegate. Add one more to Obama.
Posted by Balrog at 05/14/2008 @ 8:10pm
Too late to influence Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, or West Virginia, but the Edwards endorsement puts Hillary's lights out for good.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/14/2008 @ 8:12pm
I was hoping the "secret" endorsing person was Bill Clinton. Oh well.
Posted by trabaris at 05/14/2008 @ 8:14pm
I expect Senator Edwards will be visiting Kentucky soon, although that's not the main reason for his endorsement. Rather, as others here have stated, it is a wake-up call to the incredibly timid superdelegates to get off their duffs and finally endorse Senator Obama.
Posted by trabaris at 05/14/2008 @ 8:16pm
That's not the point. Nichols is hinting(strongly) that Edwards may be the VP.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/14/2008 @ 8:16pm
It is doubtful that Senator Edwards even wants to be VP. I suspect he has his eyes on Attorney General or, perhaps, the Supreme Court.
Posted by trabaris at 05/14/2008 @ 8:17pm
Exactly.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/14/2008 @ 8:20pm
He'll do more for Obama with blue collar than Hillary would.
Hillary might have had a chance to deal for the VP after her PA momentum if she would have stepped down, but she was a little too greedy. Oh how I love the fact that she will get nothing and be left with 20M in debt!
Posted by danconstan at 05/14/2008 @ 8:22pm
Posted by Benchrest at 05/14/2008
As anyone on this site knows, I have been one of the fiercest critics of John Edwards for his centrist voting record and investments in the very corporations he railed against on the campaign trail.
But I do have a practical streak, and realize that Edwards would be one of the better choices for VP and FAR better than Clinton with all of her and Bill's baggage.
My top choice is still Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas because she could bring together the party by appealing to older white women and perhaps influence more states to be blue in November in her neighborhood like Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri.
Obama, by himself, could add Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia to the Blue state column, so an Obama/Sebelius ticket is a clear winner for the Democrats!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/14/2008 @ 8:26pm
Matteyya:
I agree. Governor Sebelius is an excellent choice. I also think Governor Strickland or Governor Rendell would also be superb VP candidates. There is a wealth of quality VP candidates this year.
Posted by trabaris at 05/14/2008 @ 8:30pm
Posted by Benchrest at 05/14/2008
No point in re-hashing the John Edwards cultism of John Nichols....the man is practically squealing like a teeny-bobber over David Archeleta (sp?).
As for Veep...no way. Edwards would be EMBARASSED (or should be if he's got any kind of self-respect) to becoming "Always A Bridesmaid, Never A Bride" Johnny.
Plus he brings nothing to Obama except "another young 'inexperienced pretty boy" for the Right to grill in the Fall.
AG?...maybe, but he better not be a camera hog.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2008 @ 8:31pm
"Obama, by himself, could add Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia to the Blue state column, so an Obama/Sebelius ticket is a clear winner for the Democrats!"
Posted by Metteyya at 05/14/2008
METT, outside of the black vote, Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning the south.
Posted by ACook at 05/14/2008 @ 8:33pm
MASK:
I think Senator Edwards would be perfect as AG. Imagine all the great stuff he could do. As far as being a camera hog -- who cares? I suspect Edwards would spend a lot of time uncovering illegality from the Bush Administration, and I suspect Obama would let him take the credit to stay above the fray, while secretly enjoying every minute of it.
Posted by trabaris at 05/14/2008 @ 8:36pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall Edwards saying some time ago that he wasn't interested in the VP post or being in the cabinet.
Posted by natal at 05/14/2008 @ 8:42pm
Edwards' speech was inspiring ... he's still my favorite for POTUS, but if he was VP I sure wouldn't weep. Richardson could bring the Latino's if he could just convince them he IS a Latino....and yes Selebius would be a fine choice as well.
Any bets on Gore as Secretary of State? And Edwards, if not VP as Attorney General? (He IS after all, a lawyer...)
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/14/2008 @ 9:06pm
Edwards said about a month ago that he would not accept the VP slot if it was offered to him. If he was after the VP slot a quicker endorsement would have been the way to get that, given that now there is no way Clinton can win.
I think once the press woke up and did the math and started reporting that Clinton wasn't going to win, Obama was able to make the case to Edwards that all that remained was actually hitting the required delegate count. Edwards' endorsement isn't going to win Obama any of the remaining states, but it does provide some cover for other superdelegates. I got the impression that the supers were being held back by the costs of being the first one to endorse Obama. The Clinton's would look on it as a betrayal or at least a stab in the back, and no one wants to have rabid megalomaniacs after you. I doubt the Clinton's have any love left in their hearts for Edwards, given how he was clearly running more against her than Obama while in the race. (calling her an agent of the status quo in the debates, things like that). So the costs for Edwards were low, and his profile was high enough for his endorsement to frame an avalanche of supers going to Obama as a response to Edwards (for instance Edwards' stock is much higher than Bill Richardson's who never cracked 10% and hasn't ever won a primary, like Edwards did several times in '04).
What will matter much more than the endorsement is whether Edwards is willing to campaign for Obama during the general election campaign. If I am right about the motivation for this endorsement it isn't clear Edwards will do that.
The speech was a little underwhelming. Edwards still has a tendency of smiling at the wrong times, usually when he is getting cheers but when the point is a somber one. His attempt to map his campaign themes (that there are two Americas and that we need to make one America) seemed kind of silly. The two Americas talk was always about economics for Edwards. The divides that Obama wants to bridge are all culture war divides (part of the reason the poor and lower middle class aren't responding to him as much as they should). Finding a non-insulting way to talk about abortion and gay rights is nowhere near the same thing as breaking down the centers of entrenched economic power. So I thought that attempt to make it sound like they were all along on the same side did neither of them a service.
Posted by Poppolphil at 05/14/2008 @ 9:29pm
RE: Obama-Backing ...
Well, what's a big news. The guy who 's been claiming to be advocate for the working Americans (two Americas, in his own words) now comes onboard with the elitist guy whom no working American would support. But of course, Edwards is another opportunistic politico. And this ticket is a prescription for disaster: what could two unexperienced dwarfs dance in front of the war hero McCain?
Posted by HelenDAO at 05/14/2008 @ 9:40pm
John Edwards might make a decent candidate for Secretary of Labor in the first Obama administration. As for V.P., he has never proven able to deliver even his own home state of North Carolina, so a "red state" Democratic Governor like Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas might make a better, ticket-and-gender balancing choice.
Posted by mikemurry at 05/14/2008 @ 9:42pm
So red state senators are not safe but red state governors are? Democrats get elected to state wide office all the time in red states. That doesn't make much of any difference about who people vote for in presidential elections. You get a southern democrat for VP not to deliver the state they are from, but to help in swing states that have a sizable population that identifies as southern, like Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, etc. North Carolina might be in that group in a cycle or two but it isnt now and wasn't in 2004.
I have to confess that I dont understand the Sebelius choice. She is a very unremarkable speaker who will very forgettable on the campaign trail. Kansas is even more out of play than NC if I recall the 2004 results, and, like I said, the willingness to elect a democrat to state wide office does not show that people are willing to vote for a democrat for president. Plenty of people are willing to vote democrat at the state level because their major problem with democrats has to do with national defense.
Posted by Poppolphil at 05/14/2008 @ 9:51pm
"While watching the nightmare (in scope and threat) that just took place on national television"
Thought for a minute there that you were posting about Bush and Co. Silly me, I always try to think the best about people...
Posted by Balrog at 05/14/2008 @ 10:00pm
Assuming people like LibswarnedU, Frank, Helen, etc. are telling the truth, perhaps the best part of Obama's winning is that it chases the racists out of the party. Put all the racists in the Republican party and maybe it will scare the well meaning republicans away.
Posted by Poppolphil at 05/14/2008 @ 10:20pm
Posted by trabaris at 05/14/2008
If you think the Obama Administration is going to go full-bore after the previous Administration....you're going to be sorely disappointed.
They'll "move on" and work on more pressing issues...issues that will help them in 2012, not re-hash 2001-2008.
Sorry, but for a long time now (ever since Pelosi said "off the table")....Bush, Cheney, most of the rest....they walk (or ride back home in the limo).
The ignominity of history will be their only punishment.
And a nearly destroyed Republican Party!
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2008 @ 10:22pm
John Edwards is a one-term Senator with a negligible record of legislative accomplishments. In 2004, he couldn't pull his home state of North Carolina into the Kerry column -- or any other state, for that matter. In the 2008 primaries, he came in third in his natal state, South Carolina, and never got traction among voters as the candidate of economic liberalism. So with a record like this, who cares who Edwards endorses?
Posted by R Lancaster at 05/14/2008 @ 10:49pm
First of all, I don't think Edwards is a superdelegate. I have looked at the list of uncommitted sd's in NC and he isn't on it. He does have 19 pledged delegates who are free to support Obama.
LibswarnedU, you are an idiot. I don't usually resort to namecalling, but there is no other word for you (well ther are, but I don't know if they'd be appropriate).
Finally, if the Edwards endorsement weren't important no one would have cared about it. It's the big news.
Posted by loria at 05/14/2008 @ 10:59pm
LibsWarnedU put a few more of those out just in case any one missed what you are. Edwards as AG would have Chaney , Bush, KBR et-al doing the perp walk in no time
Posted by bascaville at 05/14/2008 @ 11:04pm
Loria,
Edwards is a superdelegate, or at least I have seen that reported numerous times in the press. If the source you are using says different I would doubt the source, or at least suspect it made a mistake on this one.
And this seems just plan wrong: <i>Finally, if the Edwards endorsement weren't important no one would have cared about it. It's the big news.</i>
There are more counterexamples to this principle than I can count. Take any silly media obsession over the last few years. The 24 hour channels will do whatever they have to in order to avoid dead air, or filling that dead air with meaningful reporting. And they drive the news cycle.
Posted by Poppolphil at 05/14/2008 @ 11:15pm
Posted by TheElitist
hey!
none of that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2008 @ 11:55pm
Bicheaux, here. The Master has retired to his study for the evening (he just loves his new cherry paneling) where he plans on browsing the latest catalog of monographs fresh from Cambridge. Following my tea service I will quickly usher him to bed. But he did mention that I should apologize on his behalf for comments psoted earlier, those in response to a one LibsWarnedU; he feels deeply remorseful for insinuating he would ever, in a hundred thousand Meza-zoic lifetimes, be interested in a book, let alone one on languages.
Posted by TheElitist at 05/15/2008 @ 12:02am
based on your fears.
Posted by JOMAMMA
MY fears?!?!?!?
According to a recent study by renown NASA climatologist Jim Hansen published in Science magazine, "if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed," we need to create the necessary conditions that will return us to 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere--and soon.
yeah, my fears.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 @ 12:51am
At what point did "American" and "Muslim" become languages?
Posted by Smor222 at 05/15/2008 @ 12:52am
Good post.
Posted by winyahn at 05/15/2008 @ 01:01am
That is the attitude, Jo, huzzah! Life is indeed all about consumption and accumulation. How do you think I procured the funds for these sixteen Laotian children to type my blog (blog, that word is so plebeian) entries on The Nation--just by sitting around on my rump? Hardly. You posit an interesting matter; the fruit of their labors coupled with these: automobiles, schooling, health care, travels, and housing--paid by you. Their labors indeed. Nevertheless, I congratulate you on your efforts, rest assured I will have Bicheaux here send the courier with applications for your local Young Republican chapter, your children will be most welcome. I would advise you on avoiding the charities, however, the masses are poor because they revel in it, clearly. Ta-ta.
Posted by TheElitist at 05/15/2008 @ 01:05am
I am an "Obamacan" from Texas; let me make a couple of points.
First, the abject ignorance and bigotry of the anti-Obama "Democrats" I see on the comments boards around the web is simply shocking. I have always been mildly dismayed at the misbegotten losers (apparently the spawn of many generations of losers) who style themselves as Democratic party regulars, but the bile and vitriol has just gotten out of hand. You idiots just grab a 12 pack and a can of Cheezwhiz and retire to your singlewides and we'll know when it's safe to come out. The rest of you people ought to be ashamed of yourselves for associating with these idiots. Where's the indignation?
Second, OBAMA WON TEXAS by approximately FIVE delegates, as a result of our "split" primary/caucus system. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Democratic_primary_and_caucuses,_2008 Would the troglodytes (see above) please stop crediting Texas to H-Rod. Her campaign couldn't organize its way out of a paper bag. Well, not without going deeply in debt to pay a bunch of sycophant "consultants" who know all about paper bags (that is, full of cash in the hands of an Arkansas State Trooper). Exactly how do you expect her to run ANYTHING?
hank in Houston
Posted by hankreynolds at 05/15/2008 @ 01:10am
its the only way out of obama/clinton, i fear...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/15/2008 @ 01:19am
"And that's an interesting reference to Hitler, considering your perpetual support of the fascists who have hijacked your government. A totalitarian United States? You've supported that all along - as long as your side gets to run things, to rob from the poor to give to the rich, to murder 1.2 million Iraqi civilians and 4000 American service men and women in cold blood, to force people to worship you in the guise of worshipping your idea of God. You have supported every totalitarian impulse of this regime. Every goddamned one, from torture to gulags to spying to the end of human rights here and abroad to the mass murder that constitutes illegal war of aggression. You fear for your country? It's your side, Rev, that's virtually destroyed this country. What it's come down to is this - the right has jingoists and multinational corporatists, while true patriotism resides on the left."
Spot on. Well said.
Posted by voice_of_reason at 05/15/2008 @ 01:44am
METT, outside of the black vote, Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning the south.
Posted by ACook at 05/14/2008 | ignore this person
true, 100% true. I never seen a dem win a single state in the (deep)south since i been alive...
Posted by Daisenryaku at 05/15/2008 @ 01:45am
America may have been wounded by the last 8 years of Neocon rule and their appeal to the small minded bigot. But the heart of America is strong and the results of recent elections show.
The Real America, the one enshirning the noble aspirations of the founding fathers has watched in horror for the last 8 years as the neocons ripped apart the very soul of this country in their greed for power & self wealth.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Obama 08.
Posted by voice_of_reason at 05/15/2008 @ 01:52am
jmaasch,
Indians Find U.S. at Fault in Food Cost
By HEATHER TIMMONS
Published: May 14, 2008
NEW DELHI -- Instead of blaming India and other developing nations for the rise in food prices, Americans should rethink their energy policy -- and go on a diet.
That has been the response, basically, of a growing number of politicians, economists and academics in this country, who are angry at statements by top United States officials that India's rising prosperity is to blame for food inflation.
Explaining the food price increases, Indian politicians and academics cite consumption in the United States; the West's diversion of arable land into the production of ethanol and other biofuels; agricultural subsidies and trade barriers from Washington and the European Union; and finally the decline in the exchange rate of the dollar.
check out the food graph:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/05/13/business/20080514_FOOD_GRAP HIC.gif.html
oink. oink.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 @ 01:57am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008
Spoken like a man who has never been to India. A quarter of the population is below the poverty line. Half the women in India are illiterate. Sixty percent of the more than a billion people work in agriculture.
For that last figure, imagine everyone in the United States working on a farm. Now double it. Now reduce the size of the United States by a third. Then add in another 1.5 of the U.S. population, terrible infrastructure that - among other things - leaves people defecating in the streets, and mind bogglingly bad corruption.
Three car garages? Yes, just like your factory workers have three car garages in the flats they are renting with half their salary. Do you even believe you own line of bullshit?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2008 @ 03:29am
Even for the shameless CheneyBush govt, we will nonetheless be awestruck this Xmas when the pardons are handed out to the GOP thugs who haven't yet been given outs via signing statements, DoJ opinions, and retroactively applied free-pass legislation.
Pres. Obama's admin will be spending much of its time cleaning up after CheneyBush & Co crimes that the rest of us, our children & grandchildren will be paying for.
Posted by sloper at 05/15/2008 @ 03:42am
Sloper,
I know you are trying to present a sober account of the problem, but I think your outlook is altogether too sunny. For 2 years the democratic leadership has refused to exercise any retroactive oversight. They have taken impeachment off the table and have swept the wrong doings of the administration under the carpet. As far as I can tell this was done to prevent uncovering past crimes from getting in the way of their agenda, and to avoid controversy. I would be surprised if Obama does anything significantly different. He is all about moving on past the issues that divide us. And surely making the case that Bush has engaged in the most systematic and far reaching attack on the Constitution in our history, and in war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, is going to be divisive. How do you tell half the country that they twice voted for the most corrupt and evil man ever to lead our nation without starting a lasting and bitter fight?
Posted by Poppolphil at 05/15/2008 @ 04:12am
LibsWarnedU
I love how you believe all the neocon lies and slander. Do you really think that a non-american could run for president? If you do, I suggest you read the Constitution, and re-think your fears.
Posted by Samaris at 05/15/2008 @ 05:20am
Barrack at this point in times leads the delegate count with less that 9%, hardly the clear message that the Democratic Party electorate wants him. Obama has had numerous opportunities to close the door on Clinton, and hasn't. He is a weak stick, and so is Edwards. It is the national media that is attempting to propel Obama into the general election, supporting the Obama campaign with slanted journalism. The fact remains though that neither candidate will have the required delegates going into the convention. So it will be up to the "super delegates to decide and we all know that a "commitment by one is anything but. The arrogance of Obama showed clearly in West Virginia as it will in Kentucky. We already have a president that is above all others. Do we really want another? I think not, but with Hillary being so nice to Obama, Kentucky should end this with an Obama win. Will he? No, not even with the media running interference for him. He has a crack in his golden armor that continues to widen and the discussions on his character, his voting record, and his values and beliefs have only just begun.
Posted by sailcovershot at 05/15/2008 @ 06:46am
Posted by LibsWarnedU ... Dude, get back on the thorazine, K? And Obama IS a citizen. If you feel like 4 more years of McSame just ake your pointy white hood off and do what you need to at the polls..
And when I see people like HelenDAO trumpeting "elitist" crap, I wonder if they are really that stupid, or if they just want to promote divisiveness. After all, Obama wasn't exactly "silver spoon" material .. single mom, probably got thru school on a quota scholarship, and worked for the Chicago labor movements and poor. So he's a self-made man and has a few dollars now? I woulda thought Repubs would like that being ... being followers of Mammon and all.
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008 @ 07:39am
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008
Either LIBSWARN/CONSHAME has finally snapped and gone truly schizophrenic on us.....
or somebody like LIBZSUK has hijacked her nick.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 09:00am
Libswarn recently upgraded to Limbaugh's premier membership level and celebrated by inhaling a mystery solvent he found in the garage...
Posted by winyahn at 05/15/2008 @ 09:16am
Posted by bagehot at 05/15/2008
Last post? Hang around a bit more. You've got a lot to contribute - love the term visceralists. We've eeked out mutually assured destruction so far. We might make it a bit longer. The internet's working.
Posted by winyahn at 05/15/2008 @ 09:32am
For the first time in my life (a very long life at that), I am afraid for my country and the American Dream.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/14/2008 | ignore this person
Get ready Liv.....Obama is going to be repealing your tax exempt status as fraudulent. Your American Dream and fraud on the taxpayers of this Country is about to end. Good riddance.
BTW - in case you haven't noticed, the last eight years characterize the nightmare you describe in your post.
Time for change.
Posted by OneVote at 05/15/2008 @ 09:32am
Kudos to the Obama campaign for upstaging the planned celebration of MSM & the Clinton mafia last night. Just hilarious. All the majors were apparently planning to discuss the importance of Clinton's win in a state of no importance and then poof....no more storyline relevance. Just hilarious and they had to do some fast scrambling. I noticed that MSM did not even cover the endorsement speech in full...instead we had to listen to likes of Pat Buchanan setting the stage for Kentucky as the real gamechanger of the nomination. Obama bias my ass. Obama is outsmarting the MSM. Clinton ass-kisser Lou Dobbs was visibly upset last night that Obama stole the show.
Great commentary by Keith Olbermann last night on our courageous and self sacrificing commander in chief. He is the only MSM anchor worth paying attention to. Kudos Keith. Keep up the good work if your corporate handlers will allow.
Posted by OneVote at 05/15/2008 @ 09:45am
Glad to have his endorsement, but Edwards is a bit overrated. He lost the South Carolina pretty badly (though he is now from North Carolina, he was born in South Carolina). And John Kerry lost North Carolina to Bush by about the same numbers Gore lost it to Bush. I really don't know what he brings to the table. I think Strickland or Rendell are the best bets for VP (Hagel would be the absolute best but probably wont happen). Those two governors are from important swing states and would help seal the deal in those states. Personally, I would love to see Sebelius on the ticket, but I just don't think an African American and an unknown woman can win. Sebelius 2016!
Posted by rasalula at 05/15/2008 @ 09:56am
I never seen a dem win a single state in the (deep)south since i been alive...
Posted by Daisenryaku at 05/15/2008
So you are 11 years old.
In 1992 Clinton won Georgia and Tennessee and Lousiana. In 1996 he won Tennessee and Louisiana.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2008 @ 10:14am
Posted by sailcovershot at 05/15/2008
And if Obama is such a weak stick, what does that make Hillary, who does not have even the majority in ANY objective metric any longer?
The fact is both Obama and Clinton have weaknesses, every politician does, hell, every human does. If, as a voter, one supports a candidate's general platform and the candidate is essentially trustworthy, then, I think, you should vote for that person. I feel that it is also right and necessary to shine a light on the weaknesses of that candidate, with the intention of convincing them to address the fault. Unfortunately for her supporters, on the morning of June 4th, Hillary Clinton will have some faults that neither she nor the electorate will be able to correct: she will not have won the majority of pledged delegates, popular vote nor even # of states. At which point, those of us who support the Democratic platform should unite around the nominee of the Democratic Party. To unite does not mean to support with blind obeisance. Rather it means bringing our collective wills and concerns to the table with the intention of providing solutions to (which requires critical thinking and analysis) and support for those we would elect to implement those solutions. If we do not come to the table, we cannot influence the outcome, which is why I believe it would be a great error, indeed a tragedy, for any supporter of the Democratic Platform to vote for McCain. He is truly impervious to some of our most salient and non negotiable planks, ie. ending the war in Iraq; establishing and enforcing truly meaningful environmental standards; ending corporate welfare; protecting reproductive choice; ending warrantless domestic spying; re establishing the rule of law and habeaus corpus. I believe this is what is foremost in Edward's mind and the reason for his endorement. He is leading by example.
Posted by mercury409 at 05/15/2008 @ 10:23am
LibsWarnedU --- Are you for real or just messing around? If your posts are serious, I fear you may be mildly retarded.
First you say "ALL Democrats are Communists, ALL Democrats want to surrender to the Iraqis, ALL Democrats want to steal from the productive and give to the lazy Farrakhan supporters who refuse to work" then you say "I have voted the straight Democrat party ticket all my voting life." Pardon me for being a bit confused.
Also, where does this "Obama is not a citizen" stuff come from? First of all, he was born in Hawaii. Last time I checked, Hawaii was part of the United States. Also, Article I, Section III of the U.S. Constitution says "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a CITIZEN of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen." If Obama is not a citizen, please explain how he was able to get into the Senate. Apparently you know something about Obama that the rest of the country, including the Supreme Court, does not. Interesting.
Also, FYI, "Muslim" is not a language. That's like saying someone speaks Christian. WTF?
Thanks for the hilarious posts, though.
Posted by mjc981 at 05/15/2008 @ 10:29am
Don't be too quick to count out some southern states - not so much because of Edwards but because of Bob Barr's decision to run. One computer model of the November election said that with a 20 to 30 percent increase in black turnout, several southern states would be in play or close to it. One of those that would take a 30 percent increase to be in play was Georgia; if Barr could take even 5% away from McCain and black turnout rises as expected, then Georgia, as well as North Carolin and Virgina are winnable.
Posted by Steve1us at 05/15/2008 @ 10:48am
I started off being excited about the prospects that this Democratic race had to offer. However I have been disappointed, sad and now dejected by this process. It's not because one candidate won and another lost but because the complexity of the party has been reduced to either/or.
As such, multi-racial coalitions have come to mean black and white with attention to the Hispanic vote (not people or concerns) when the population was large enough that they couldn't be ignored. The working class vote has been reduced to white and racist. The female/feminist vote has been potrayed as either out-of-touch, old guard, white feminism for Clinton or progressive, anti-war, and young for Obama.
As a woman of color from a working class and immigrant family, I have a stake in all of these classifications. So where should I have placed my allegiance in this race? I didn't find my complex identity or my complex interests represented by any candidate. If as a person of color I found Clinton's run for the presidency inspiring and supported her campaign, was I betraying my committment to anti-racism and anti-militarism? On the other hand, if I as a working-class woman found Obama's campaign inspiring and supported his candidacy, was I betraying my committment to gender equity, feminism and class equity?
That was during the nomination processes. Now as it has winded down, what am I to make of the glee in the defeat of the first viable female candidate for the presidency? Am I not to feel the tinge of sexism? And if I feel it, where is my place in the party as a ardent feminist?
Clinton made mistakes in this campaign and some damaging enough to have long-term consequences. Those mistakes had a rightful place when we choosing among the two candidates for the nomination. Now that the choice is over, it is time to give Clinton her dues and recognize the historic contribution she made (including allowing her the opportunity to end this campaign in a manner of her choosing). As a party we also need to use her candidacy and what it represented to build a stronger platform for women's issues. And have those issues extend beyond the usual rhetoric of abortion rights and Title IX to include more complex issues such as disparity in incarceration, health care, etc. And most importantly how issues of class, race, and gender intersect and have implications for our social policies.
I hope as move to the general election and we celebrate the victory of a candidate (or the defeat of a candidate) this party will not continue to alienate voters like myself who were already feeling invisible.
Posted by nalinie at 05/15/2008 @ 11:03am
what am I to make of the glee in the defeat of the first viable female candidate for the presidency? Am I not to feel the tinge of sexism? And if I feel it, where is my place in the party as a ardent feminist?----Posted by nalinie at 05/15/2008
nalinie, if the Repubs had somehow nominated Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole....and the Dems a "bland white guy"...
would you have ANY twinges over glee at seeing Huthchinson or Dole lose in November?
Think on that...and then you may have your answer.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 11:06am
Either LIBSWARN/CONSHAME has finally snapped and gone truly schizophrenic on us.....
or somebody like LIBZSUK has hijacked her nick.
Posted by Mask
i think conshame is just fed up and has gone hypersarcastic.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:21:41 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 @ 11:15am
Hey FROSTY, looks as if you're the first to have the time appended to your message. Canadian know-how !?!
Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 05/15/2008 @ 11:19am
Hey FROSTY, looks as if you're the first to have the time appended to your message. Canadian know-how !?!
Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2
no, the NSA does that for me.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:30:37 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 @ 11:24am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008
Protecting the cyber-perimeter, yeah?
Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 05/15/2008 @ 11:38am
Posted by madlib at 05/15/2008
I hear what you're saying. I would ask, however, with which politician would you be reasonably able to divine that what they speak of they do so from sincerity and committment as opposed to ego and manipulation? I think we have to be careful of ascribing motivations or attitudes to anyone with little or flimsy or no evidence. Pundits think that's their job -- they like to call it speculation -- but I think it's irresponsible and makes us vulnerable to every little momentary and gossipy bit of negativity, and in extreme cases we run the risk of slipping into a kneejerk political cynicism. Does that sound like an Obama talking point? You know, it's funny, I have thought and believed and spoken these things for a very long time -- years. And along comes Obama and he is speaking to them, using the language and what's more also championing the platforms. Is Obama an eerily astute manipulator of human emotions? I haven't seen the evidence. Do I let myself succumb to cynicism and fear and reject the person who is speaking to what I believe? You know, life is too short to let it be dictated by fear. I want to be an active participant in the future. I demand my rightful place at the table and I think everyone should. The trouble with the past eight years was not that Bush grabbed all that power and did evil with it, it was that so many citizens were so deeply mired in fear that they allowed him to do so. Every president is only human, with a finite base of power unless we give them more than that. Under no circumstances do I advocate that.
Posted by mercury409 at 05/15/2008 @ 11:44am
Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 05/15/2008
Yep, I was aware of those attributes, though I am not sure about the rapture thing (I posted a moderate amount for a while, but not so much recently).
If you ask me, the undead thing is just creepy - how do we know he isn't a pod person or wasn't taken up by aliens and had sado-sexual rituals performed on his person?
Truth is, I think the guy sincerely believes the stuff he posts; I find that very scary, not the least bit reassuring.
Skeletor
Posted by skeletonman at 05/15/2008 @ 12:07pm
Mask--my point was not to say that becasue Clinton is the not the nominee the Democratic Party is sexist or people who voted for Obama did so because of their sexist beliefs (hence my question, given my complex identity where should my allegiance have been?).
And I'm not in anyway implying that the party chose the wrong candidate. I'm concerned about the glee expressed over the fact that the Clinton campaign has failed and I fear that most of that glee is laced with sexism. And what does that means for the Democratic Party (as the party that champions women's issues)and how that could impact the place of feminist voters such as myself.
And to your question, if Dole or Hutchinson were running I would not want them to win because they don't represent my political views. But that does not mean I'm not for gender equity or that I would want either of them to be treated in a sexist manner or that I couldn't appreciate the historic nature of Elizabeth Dole's candidacy.
Posted by nalinie at 05/15/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008
I'll be spending 10 weeks in India starting next month.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2008 @ 12:22pm
Posted by nalinie at 05/15/2008
nalinie, I believe your perspective is skewed.
The "glee" that some show at Hillary's political demise is NOT based on her gender...but on her personality AND her politics.
Most "progressives" didn't care for her to begin with...as a proud member of the DLC as well as voting for and continueing (upto 2007 almost) to support the war in Iraq.
Secondly, I can only speak as a male feminist...but I think feminists such as yourself should see the REAL goal of gender equity as being us reaching the point where a woman (or a man) can be REJECTED as well as accepted, simply on the basis of their character or policy positions....
and I think that's where we are with Hillary.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 12:25pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008
Amusing. Just like a conservative to complain about a service he gets for free and thinking he is at the center of the universe. Internet commentary is clearly not what this redesign is about, as is obvious from the lack of basic Q&A testing before the put the code into production.
While I find the fact that they still haven't bothered to add a timestamp to posts or fix basic functionality like being able to view your ignore list or remove people from it as annoying as you do, I presume they are making other changes that are more important, like something that is obviously connected with generating The Nation article page views and ad revenue.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2008 @ 12:33pm
Hey Libswarnedu:
When did "American" get to be a language? What an idiot!
Posted by jayjay at 05/15/2008 @ 12:41pm
Edwards for VP, not a chance. Been there, done that and not very well.
If Sen. Obama does not pick Ed Rendell, Evan Bahye, Bill Richardson or maybe even Joe Biden, he's dumber than John Edwards looks.
Posted by DWACPA at 05/15/2008 @ 12:51pm
like something that is obviously connected with generating The Nation article page views and ad revenue.
Posted by srjenkins
ahhhhh......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 @ 12:52pm
This 20 year subscriber to the Nation is cancelling his subscription and planning to vote for McCain.
Posted by Spengler47 at 05/15/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by nalinie at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
hill is a woman. therefore to oppose her is misogyny...
no. i'm sure misogynists do oppose her, but there are plenty of good reasons why people don't like her.
she is a manipulator, though, boohooing in misogynistically stereotypical fashion one day, high horsing the next about how misogynist everyone who calls her down on it is...
and you know...
1. there are indeed differences between males and females...i'll not waste time detailing the physical differences but i will point out that such physical differences are not trivial...and affect behavior...
lots of good science shows that IN GENERAL men and women think a bit differently and have different strengths and weaknesses.
2. equating male female issues to racism/ethnic bigotry is not entirely honest nor intellectually valid.
place a genetically diverse population in a secluded valley from which there is no escape and eventually they will become one genetic group of people. any difference in role and status between different genetic types is most likely attributable to social differences...
but even after a hundred generations...still gonna be men and women...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/15/2008 @ 1:37pm
"In 1992 Clinton won Georgia and Tennessee and Lousiana. In 1996 he won Tennessee and Louisiana."
Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2008
You call that winning the South? He barely squeeked by. Anyway, I think he won Arkansas in 1992.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 1:40pm
As usual, a lot of ad hominum attacks rather than debate the substance. That is the normal course of response by most of the leftists on this site.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/15/2008
Can I just say I love how LVLIB bemoans ad hominem attacks....
over a post where he mentions the "similarity" of John Edwards and Barack Obama to Lenin and Hitler!
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 2:02pm
Anyone catch Dumbya's "speechifyin' " in Israel? LOL .. what a bunch of garp. And his pronunciation of "argamunt" and "Nazi tonks" was classic Bushism.
BTW .. LL1 Isn't politicking about manipulating the perspective of people to your particular viewpoint at least a teensy bit? I mean, Dumbya vis-a-vis Rove's "you should all be vewy, vewy scared" (trying an Elmer Fudd accent without italics) is classic mind twisting. So which is "better" in a moralistic sense? To try and evoke the working public's sense of solidarity, or to play to base level fears? Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Although I suppose the "God-fearin' types" probably find a perverse comfort in being scared....
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008 @ 2:12pm
REV',
To follow up, as I have had my fun at your expense (yup, too easily), I will abide by your wishes and not use the nick that is similar to yours in future postings. You down? I think that more or less approximates fair play.
So, in this last incarnation as LL-2, I just want to qoute that duo of staunch lovers of America, those men of rectitude and moral compasses that spin to the right, and capture their thoughts as the nation's wounds were still open and bleeding in the days after 9-11. Here they are, those leading spokespeople of the right with an earplug filled with Gawd's booming voice, Jerry and Pat:
JERRY FALWELL: ...And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
[Hear that, America? "What we deserve", according to Jerry, architect of the post-1980s right]
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system...
Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 05/15/2008 @ 2:14pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008
Don't have much time today - on my way out for a few days. Short answer: I am taking an intensive language course.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2008 @ 2:33pm
hill is a woman
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/15/2008
That's no woman, that's a MAN Baby!!
WHY...WON'T...THIS...WIG...COME...OFF!!!
Posted by Benchrest at 05/15/2008 @ 2:44pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/15/2008
LVLIB....so saying there is "similarity in the manipulation of the public by appealing to this populist propaganda of a "the people versus the elites'"....
and pointing out that BOTH Lenin AND Hitler AND Edwards AND Obaama are doing that...
is NOT "comparing them"?
I see, so if I said "there is a similarity in the appeals to nationalism and faith" in both the Ayatollah Khomeni and the Taliban....
and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson....
I wouldn't be "comparing them"?
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 3:28pm
Edwards waiting until after the N. Carolina primary, which Obama swept, is interesting. Perhaps he isn't very popular in his home state? We already know he's not all that popular among the electorate in general.
He sounds good, looks good, has a smart and pleasant wife - but there's just something there that doesn't ring true?
Obama may have mixed feelings about his endorsement. Don't think he'd choose him for vice. And all you Rodham-for-vice cats should know that if Obama puts her on his ticket, he'd better definitely hire a food-taster.
Posted by felicity at 05/15/2008 @ 3:34pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/15/2008
Luvvy, I understood your attack on 2 (comparatively) decent human beings quite well.
In your follow up, your argument seems to be that 'I did not say that O/E ARE Lenin and Hilter,' just that there methods are like Lenin's and Hitler's were, just that their message is different.
My point earlier is that you cannot and should not compare Obama and Edwards to Hilter and Lenin and remains unrefuted. In saying that their methods are akin to those 20th C. monsters, you have compared 2 fairly decent people to the slime of humanity.
My further point - that Bush and Cheney have much more in common with Hitler and Lenin in terms of methodology also remains unrefuted.
Did you even bother to follow the link to the treatise on fascism I posted, or is the sand in which your head is buried too cool and comfortable for you to risk exposing it to the light of day?
Posted by skeletonman at 05/15/2008 @ 3:42pm
...if Obama puts her on his ticket, he'd better definitely hire a food-taster.
Posted by felicity at 05/15/2008
Hmmm...that sounds familiar....heheh
Anyway, the point of Edwards' endorsement wasn't the endorsement...it was the TIMING.
Right after Her Nibs won her major victory in Bobby Byrd-Land, the news coverage the next day was "Edwards Endorses Obama"...not "Hillary Sweeps West Virginia", and it took a slightly negative story for Obama, and shoved it into a dark corner.
All things considered, Obama probably had already gotten the heads-up from Edwards...and together they planned the MI speech for just such an occasion.
Almost makes you feel sorry for the ol' gal.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 3:44pm
I was totally a hillary ardent fan since a very, very, long time in years! Nobody was as hurt as I personally when in an effort to prove she is qualified for the Commander-in-Chief's post she LIED about the SNIPER FIRE in Bosnia with no conscience, same instance whereas she was offered bouquets by young girls! Hillary I hate you. You are no better than your hubby who lied under oath.
Posted by aleemsyed at 05/15/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by Benchrest at 05/15/2008
Austin Powers ref....Classic! LOL
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008 @ 4:41pm
Despite the fun so many seem to be having dissing Hillary especially as a vp candidate, remember that millions voted for her in the primaries and many of her voters are committed supporters who will mobilize to work extra hard in the GE if they believe she is being fairly treated. Don't shrug off Hillary and her supporters.
Posted by trudymahony at 05/15/2008 @ 5:02pm
Lenin was no monster. That is a slander. You try leading a country through a revolution (never a garden party, contrary to the fantasies of pacifists and liberals), a campaign of espionage organized and financed out of London and Paris, military intervention by multiple hostile powers, and a civil war where your opponents are supported by the two most powerful countries in the world, all this in a country stil reeling from three years of World War.
Stalin was the monster, the betrayer of the Bolshevik Revolution and the gravedigger of the Bolshevik Old Guard.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/15/2008 @ 5:31pm
ibbleblibble and Mask-please re-read my comments. Once again, I'm not lamenting Clinton's loss nor am I saying that folks who didn't vote for Hillary are misogynists. And I'm certainly not questioning anyone's feminist credentials because they didn't vote for Clinton. Of course you can be a feminist and vote for Obama (as many feminists have) and be anti-racist and vote for Hillary (as many of them have). I'm simply expressing my concern over the sexist reactions that are emerging to the end of her campaign and not appreiciating the historical milestone she reached (and yes you can appreciate it without endorsing her or her ideas).
In fact my original post said: As a woman of color from a working class and immigrant family, I have a stake in all of these classifications. So where should I have placed my allegiance in this race? I didn't find my complex identity or my complex interests represented by any candidate. If as a person of color I found Clinton's run for the presidency inspiring and supported her campaign, was I betraying my committment to anti-racism and anti-militarism? On the other hand, if I as a working-class woman found Obama's campaign inspiring and supported his candidacy, was I betraying my committment to gender equity, feminism and class equity?
My concern for moving forward into the general election without giving Clinton her dues could alienate Clinton supporters. It could also alienate voters like myself that were not invested in either of these candidates but definitely are distrubed by the sexism we detect in the response to the end of her campaign. But more importantly, I am concerned for what the future of this party will be (platforms, values, etc.) if we accept this type of response now.
Posted by nalinie at 05/15/2008 @ 5:57pm
Posted by madlib at 05/15/2008
Is there nothing in Obama's 20 years of public service which you find compatible with where his platform stands now?? Seems to me he's been for reproductive freedom the whole time, he has taken the experience of the gas tax holiday in Illinois and applied it to this current pandering dust up, you can't deny he was on the mark about Iraq.... The data exists. I'm sure a trip to his website would be illuminating and maybe some time with "the google". Peace and good luck.
Posted by mercury409 at 05/15/2008 @ 6:46pm
lvliberty1 decries the populist message of Obama (though I have yet to know what Obama's populist message is) and Edward and equates it with the class warfare. Perhaps lvliberty1 does not realize that class warfare is the fundamental basis of this society and is being effectively waged by the political and economic elite every single day through various legislative, judicial and political actions of both democratic and republican administrations. It is sad that lvliberty1 is woefully ignorant of this fact. The economic elite is in control of all the institutions and will remain in control regardless who is in the White House...Obama, Edward, Clinton or whoever. The left's support for Obama is misplaced. To me, he is an unknown quantity. I have also lost my respect for the left for its vicious ad hominem attacks on Obama's opponents and failing to question Obama's positions on various issues.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/16/2008 @ 12:50pm
Charliez, as much as I have detested the way Hillary has been mistreated by the left, I do not think that Hillary will be the right choice for the VP spot, nor should she accept it if one was offered. I intend to sit out this election and watch from the sidelines.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:15pm