I can see why he does this now, because when he shoots himself in the foot he can just come back next episode/thread and be magically healed.
I still don't get your infatuation with Edwards. I know, I know, he's a lawyer, so there is the common bond there, but what *issues* do you agree with him on? 1) Foreign policy? 2) Taxes?! 3) Affirmative Action?!?!!!!! 4) Gay Marriage?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?! 5) ABORTION?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! 6) The Economy!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!????!!!! Good grief, the guy is a raging liberal, intent on touting his 'small guy' image, even though he's a multi-millionaire personal-injury trial lawyer who got rich chasing ambulances and raising our insurance premiums. Does your lawyer man-love transcend the friggin issues?! GOOD RIDDANCE, LIP-MOLE BOY
the hypocricy on display by you is amazing you accuse the left of "playing to the fears" and then the very next paragraph you play to the right's fears as a reason to vote Bush.. Not to mention your racist, bigoted stereotypes If your going to be divisive and play on people's fears fine, but don't call out the left on it but continue to do it yourself
From David Corn at thenation.com 1. Conventional wisdom rules. John Kerry started out the front-runner, according to the political handicappers. And largely because of the same reasons that he was initially dubbed the guy-to-beat, he ended up the front-runner, winning nine of ten contests on Super Tuesday. The no-longer-running Howard Dean finally won a state: Vermont. Kerry was the safe choice. Democrats went for a fellow who was not too young, not too fiery, not too bold, not too flashy; they selected a solid, workhorse Democrat who is mostly liberal but who is no rip-roaring populist. He has the experience and the gravitas--perhaps too much gravitas--to be president. Some observers have likened Kerry to the dead-man-walking Bob Dole of 1996, but Kerry, who could use a jolt of Dole-like humor, is much more a fighter. Don't forget he was a crusading prosecutor before becoming lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. Which brings us to the next point. 2. A million cuts. A journalist called me the other day to ask what would be the most perilous time for Kerry between now and the convention. My answer: every day. It's clear the Bush campaign strategy is to nick away at Kerry 24/7. They will go over the thousands of votes Kerry has cast and use them as ammunition, accusing him of voting to weaken national defense and supporting wacko liberal positions. This has already started. The White House and the GOP has cited long-ago votes against certain weapons systems as evidence Kerry cannot be trusted to safeguard America. Recently Fred Kaplan on Slate debunked much of this early attack. A good example he cited: Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie slammed Kerry for having voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget in 1995. But this money was appropriated for a spy satellite that the National Reconnaissance Office never launched. And the Senate was voting to rescind these funds, which were not going to be used. A majority of the Senate supported this position. But facts don't matter. The goal of the GOP is to turn Kerry into a bleeder. To force him to explain his votes and past positions over and over--and then again. Even if he has reasonable explanations, he still could end up looking weak if he constantly has to defend his past actions. Kerry is going to have to find a way to answer the attacks without becoming too entangled in a charge-countercharge dance. He has to avoid appearing as if he has lots of 'splaining to do, but he also cannot let criticism go unanswered. This will not be easy. His top aides tell me that they are ready for the Bush assault. But they are only now in the process of creating a war-room type of operation to deal with the incoming. 3. After 9/11, grown-ups are wanted. John Edwards ran a swell campaign. He had the best speech of all the candidates. ("There are two Americas....") He had the best temperament. And he has plenty of brains beneath his golden locks. But he couldn't seal the deal. He didn't even come close. It was not because of his ideas; he had few policy differences with Kerry. It was not because he didn't have the funds to make himself and his positions known to primary voters. It was probably because in this post-9/11 period he did not come across as ready-to-lead. He has not finished his first term in the Senate; he had no previous experience in government or foreign policy. He talked--at length!--about sharing the values of the working class (having been the son of a mill worker before becoming a millionaire trial attorney) and understanding their lives (presumably in a way that the blue-blooded Kerry could not). But empathy only goes so far. It's not the same as inspiring confidence and reassurance. And it could well be that Democratic voters in 2004 wanted a candidate who reeks of maturity and experience. Edwards was confronted by a stature gap--and the gap won. After 9/11, protector-in-chief is at the top of he yet has the chops for that. 4. Issues? We don't need no stinking issues? This was not a contest decided by issues. Most Democrats were opposed to the Iraq war, skeptical of Nafta and similar trade accords, and uneasy about the Patriot Act. Yet the two candidates who fared best in the primary contest--Kerry and Edwards--both voted for legislation granting Bush the authority to go to war and for the Patriot Act. Kerry voted for Nafta; Edwards was not yet in the Senate for that vote, but he did vote for the China trade pact. No issue--not even the war--defined the campaign for most voters. When Howard Dean, the only top-tier candidate who had opposed the war, dropped out, his antiwar vote did not flock to Representative Dennis Kucinich, the only other serious antiwar candidate. (Sharpton is not a serious candidate.) Edwards tried to make trade an issue separating himself from Kerry. But he was hanging on to a thin reed: that his criticism of the recent trade pacts was edgier than Kerry's. But that effort failed. Union voters--who perhaps are the most concerned about trade--still went overwhelmingly for Kerry. This was a contest among candidates not messages. Dean learned that early. Which brings us to electability. 5. It ain't no sin to be electable. And there's nothing wrong with a voter using electability as a criterion. When I heard voters remark that Kerry had the E-quality, they often explained it by saying he possessed a solid record in the Senate, had acquired years of experience in foreign policy, boasted sound and decent policy stands, and was ready and able to challenge Bush forcefully. Those are all fine reasons for picking a candidate. Selecting a candidate based on electability is not necessarily a cop-out; it's rendering the judgment that the candidate is equipped to beat the other guy and become president. In 2000, many Republicans signed on early with George W. Bush noting his electability. But what they had in mind was that he had the bucks, the brand name and the endorsements needed to clobber his primary opponents. They were right, and it worked out well for Republicans and conservatives. Kerry's so-called electability seems based more on his qualifications than his advantages. 6. But what about Edwards' cross-over appeal? Yes, Edwards did well among Republicans and independents in those states where the Rs and Is can vote in the Democratic primary. But in 2000 Senator John McCain was a big hit with the Indies and had more appeal to Dems than Bush. And he only got so far. In party primaries, the first-place ribbon goes to the guy who excites (or wins the votes of) the party faithful. Parties do not nominate folks because they are liked by the other side. That's the way it is. Each party is burdened by this dynamic. And most Republicans who voted for Edwards would probably end up voting for Bush. 7. Edwards for veep? He has a net worth of millions, but Edwards is not a retire-early-and-take-up-fly-fishing guy. He's already given up his Senate seat. What's he to do now, except angle to be Kerry's sidekick? He could be a fine choice. But it's far too early for Kerry to be thinking about getting hitched. He has until the convention in late July. And he should wait to see how the race against Bush develops. Then he will know what he might need (or want) in a running mate. Perhaps polls will show a toss-up state Kerry must win is fading for him. A veep candidate from that state might reverse the drift. It's true that a running mate rarely has much impact on a presidential race. (See Dan Quayle.) But if a few extra votes can be gained by a good pick, Kerry ought to make his calculated choice as close to the November election as possible. Edwards will have to sit tight. 8. Kucinich has pushed far enough. Every presidential campaign needs someone to push the policy envelope. With his advocacy of a single-payer, nonprofit healthcare system, his proposal for a Department of Peace, his pledge to trash Nafta, and his call to replace U.S. troops in Iraq with international peacekeepers (a plan that rests on several optimistic assumptions), Kucinich played that noble role. But now it's time to fold the tent. He had his shot. The left wing of the party--the peaceniks, the anti-Naftaistas--did not rally behind him in sufficient numbers. And the math is undeniable; he has no chance. One can--and should--only defy the physical laws of the universe for so long. Yet before the votes were tallied on Super Tuesday Kucinich was vowing to keep going until the convention. On CNN, he claimed that Democrats had to choose him because he is the only candidate who could bring in "the Greens, the Natural Law Party." The Natural Law Party? While every vote does count--Florida showed that--it's doubtful that the Democratic nominee's fortunes will rise or fall on the disposition of the Natural Law Party vote. And Kucinich failed to win over more than 9 percent of the Democratic voters of his home state of Ohio. With his presidential campaign, Kucinich did position himself as a--if not the--leading progressive of the House Democrats. But if Kucinich stays in the race, insisting that only he can beat Bush by attracting outsider voters, he risks coming across as a crank who cannot recognize political realities rather than as a visionary willing to challenge conventional thinking. 9. If Kucinich should go, then Sharpton should really go. It's galling to watch this man go on and on about the need to stay in the race so he can arrive at the convention with delegates and make sure his party ends up with the right policy positions. Sharpton endorsed Republican Senator Alfonse D'Amato, an ethics-challenged machine hack, in 1986 over Democratic nominee Mark Green. (History declared: I worked on the Green campaign.) Sharpton also supported Republican Michael Bloomberg's mayoral bid in 2001 (again, over Green). And this year he is being advised and assisted (including financially) by GOP strategist Roger Stone, who was involved in the so-called khaki riot at the Dade County municipal office in 2000 that may have led to the shutdown of the Miami recount. So where is (and was) the party loyalty Sharpton now cites as his reason for staying in the race until the convention? He's not in this for a platform debate--as if that matters this year. He's in this to advance a single cause: Al Sharpton. He wants the camera time, and he wants a speaking gig at the convention. The Democrats have showed him more than enough kindness. He's lucky to have received the free air time he's already obtained. This reverend deserves no more time in the pulpit. 10. It's the journalists, stupid? Right before Kerry made his victory speech on Super Tuesday, one of his top advisers told me, "The real question in this race will be, do American journalists take presidential politics serious." By that he meant that the media can play a critical role in the contest: truth-testing the attacks (and shaming candidates that mount dishonest and unfair assaults), highlighting the important policy differences between Bush and Kerry, and making clear for the voters exactly what is at stake. He obviously believes that Kerry would benefit from such media behavior. But if the Kerry campaign is relying upon the media to do a good job consistently on these fronts, then Democrats ought to worry. Kerry now has to figure out how to do three things simultaneously: thwart the Bush attacks, launch his attacks on Bush, and present a positive message based on his positions and his own attributes and past actions. He cannot count on reporters to assist him. This is not their fight; it's his. And it will be a helluva battle.
EDIT: the darned .gif ain't working, anyway go to the original sitefor a funny comparison of a Kaus/Sullivan column: http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_uggabugga_archive.html
You are a breathtakingly obtuse simpleton. Your grasp of the complexity of foreign policy is comical. You and Patrick Buchanan may be the only two people in the US who don't realize this, but what other nations around the world think and do does in fact impact the US and its allies. It is very, very unwise to, oh, invade a country in a politically explosive region without a) a real plan for interim governance b) adequate international support c) a full understanding of implications for the region d) any sort of an exit strategy e) etc., etc. I am fully aware that you and all other am radio types would be perfectly happy to invade Iran and kick some ass. Why do you want to do that? God knows. What would you do when you got there? How would you leave and what would happen once you left? Who cares? Those people are dark skinned and wear funny clothes and they piss off BS and his painfully gullible jingo friends. Nice one, referring to a Moonie publication, by the way. Most conservatives that I know who weren't wed in an auditorium dismiss the Times as a propaganda sheet. Finally, I think your pals over at Diebold have pretty successfully siezed the mantle of voter fraud from the Democrats of the '60s, but by all means keep chirping about JFK and his stolen election if it makes you feel better.
Regarding the David Corn article and Edwards seasoning, every President since FDR had at least 14 years experience in elective government except for two: Eisenhower and W. And there's a big difference in experience between those two.
We want Bama and Trader to post and speak with their fellow citizens as much as possible. There could hardly be a better arguement for voting the straight Democratic ticket .
Kerry and the Big Dog? I don't see it. I always thought Gore should have done it though. ______________________ Bill Clinton could be just the ticket for Kerry By STEPHEN GILLERS With John Kerry's success in Tuesday's primaries, the race for the Democratic nomination for president is all but over -- and speculation about his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest. John Edwards, Kerry's closest rival [and who is expected to officially withdraw from the race today], is a proven campaigner and could attract Southern voters. Govs. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Bill Richardson of New Mexico have both regional appeal and executive experience. Dark-horse candidates include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia. Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton. Clinton's strengths would compensate for Kerry's weaknesses almost perfectly. Not only is Clinton the most talented campaigner of his generation, but he is also a Southerner -- and since 1948, when Harry S. Truman chose Sen. Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every successful Democratic ticket has included a citizen of a Southern state. Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So why not? The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice." No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president. True, if Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Clinton would succeed Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession. So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want the job -- and would Kerry want him to take it? We won't know until we ask, of course. But before asking, we might cite some compelling reasons for both men to consider a Kerry-Clinton ticket seriously. For Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics -- but not so much among Democrats. And surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that was one of the hallmarks of his administration. Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket, Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all of them. And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago promised to restore "character" to Clinton's own White House. The only remaining question, then, is what Kerry thinks of all this. Judging from recent debates, there's little chemistry between Kerry and Edwards. But Kerry and Clinton would seem to have much in common; they are nearly the same age, worked with each other in Washington for almost a decade and have a shared interest in foreign affairs. For Kerry, the question may well come down to whether adding Clinton to the ticket would appreciably increase his chances of victory. A couple of polls should give him the answer fast enough. If the results are good, the course is clear: Bring him on.
If that were to happen, it seems like the VP would be casting a much bigger shadow than the President. I wonder if Kerry's ego could stand people always saying that it was really Clinton who was running things. But if that were the way to beat Bush, then by all means bring Clinton on board as the VP candidate.
Simply not true. I merely mentioned (correctly) that a vote for Kerry is a vote for an appeasing, wussy foreign policy that will lead to our destruction at the hands of the animals who seek to destroy us. Racist? When was I a racist? Typical. Go slurp on your latte, listen to your sad old b*stard music and continue to whine about Bush, because you're going to have FOUR more years of him. I was going to vote libertarian, but hell, I can't hand the country off to a pompous, moronic, naive boob like Kerry who will lead us to ruin. I like lower taxes. I like a real war on terror. So get ready to suck up the reality in November: the Republicans will be running things with an even bigger majority. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Something about you and mudflaps that just goes together. Keep up the good fight in lowering my taxes, btw.
lol how many insults and bigoted statements can you throw into one post defending that you dont insult and stereotype?
JK: "If this ball stays in the aisle the whole way down to the very end, then Clinton is our selection as VP. No wait, don't quote me on that."
So, if Nixon had resigned before Agnew was replaced (and the Speaker and President Pro Tem of the Senate had heart attacks and died upon the news that they would be President), we could've had a foreigner as President? I mean, the succession, as far as I know, doesn't specifically say that the rules of who can be elected President apply, and if they don't apply to the selection of Vice President who was formerly President and don't apply in the term limitations amendment, I guess it doesn't apply in the succession. So, maybe we'll see an Arnold presidency. Let him run for the House, name him Speaker once he wins and then get the President and VP to resign. Then we've managed to do an end-run around the Constitution and gotten a foreign-born President.
Not quite Mrp. Here's the text... No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. It doesn't saying anything about being elected... just serving. If Arnold was the Speaker and his turn came, he would automatically be passed to the next person in line who was eligible.
No, Article II says this (in part): No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person beeligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. The 22nd Amendment says this (in part) No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice While Clinton could not be 'elected' president, he is, according to Article II 'eligible" to become president. Currently, Arnold can be 'elected', but he is not eligible to take office if he won, or if somebody died, etc.
