Great news for Mike Gravel…

Now that John Edwards has quit the race for the Democratic nomination, the big question on everybody’s minds is where will his supporters go, Clinton or Obama? But without a doubt the big winner from Edwards withdrawal is Mike Gravel, who now stands to double or even triple his current delegate count. (Do the math.)

As for where this particular Edwards supporter goes… well… I don’t yet know. I’ve never bought in to the “Hillary can’t win” meme, but I do believe that Obama matches up better against John McCain, and will be better for down ticket candidates like Darcy Burner. And I’m torn between Clinton’s hard-edged political savvy, versus Obama’s potential as a transformational leader. They’re both qualified and I believe they’d both make a good president. And they both appear to be smarter than me, one of the only litmus tests beyond party identification I absolutely apply to presidential candidates.

If you too were an Edwards supporter, I’d love to hear from you in the comment threads as to who you plan to caucus for a week from Saturday.

Comments

  1. 2

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I’m about in the same place as you, Goldy. I like Obama. In a more perfect world, I’d like what he represents. But I don’t think you can fight today’s Republican Party with anything less than a Hillary.

  2. 3

    bob spews:

    I know Republicans who would be “okay with Obama”. These are the same Republicans who would cross Hell or High Water to vote againt Clinton. I’ve meet a bunch of Democratics who say they can’t vote for Clinton. From what I see the only thing which could unite the Republican Party *is* Hillary Clinton.

  3. 5

    spews:

    Edwards was the closest candidate campaigning against the corporatization of the US government. Hillary “Former Board Director of WalMart” Clinton’s husband was a major instigator of corporatization of government. For all those who love Bill, don’t forget he made the largest increase in military spending since Reagan (of course, dwarfed now by GW), pushed us into NAFTA and the WTO, and joined Republicans in villanizing the poor and “ending welfare as we know it”. Not only that, but his lack of support for Gore is arguably the main reason GW was elected.

    My favorite bumpersticker last year: “Hillary Clinton: Bush with balls”. Hillary will be “not as bad” as GW, but since the political spectrum has shifted strongly to the right, her policies might put her on par with Reagan, slightly to the right of Nixon. She’ll do it with a smiling face and without the arrogance and vulgarity of Bush/Cheney, but she’s a “Democrat” and a woman so everyone will blindly support her.

    Obama is slightly better (or at least doesn’t yet have Hilalry’s record) but I fear that he will spend a lot of time (if elected) trying to convince Red America that he’s not 1) a Muslim, 2) Osama. He’ll try convincing them this by bombing Muslims.

    If Hillary gets the nom, I’m praying Bloomberg will run and screw everything up. Maybe it’ll at least result in much needed electoral reform. Otherwise, thank God for Cynthia McKinney…

  4. 6

    spews:

    I wasn’t an Edwards supporter. After Dodd dropped out, however, I was vacillating between Edwards and Uncommitted as my caucus sign-in.

    My vacillation is now between Obama and Uncommitted. If I do the latter (which I’d say is the more likely decision, at least for today), I expect that I’ll be all but alone. If Uncommitted doesn’t qualify for a delegate, I’ll switch to Obama.

    If, somehow, Clinton sweeps the floor with Obama next Tuesday and becomes the all-but-certain nominee, I’ll definitely sign in as Uncommitted.

  5. 7

    spews:

    Lose-Lose, I hope you’ll enjoy the next four years under President McCain. I won’t.

    A huge reason to vote for the Democrat — no matter who it turns out to be — is SCOTUS. Another is the entire federal judiciary. Still another is leadership of federal agencies.

  6. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @6 I don’t think a Clinton (or Obama) sweep is in the offing. The reason is Rule 13-B, which divides up delegates proportionally, and probably will keep the race undecided through April or May at least. And then you have the 600 superdelegates, who could tip a close convention, and you can be sure both sides are working hard behind the scenes to line up these delegates — many of whom may remain uncommitted for quite some time yet. (They are, generally speaking, top party officials and office holders.) You have to look at the delegate count, not who wins which primaries or caucuses. The Repubs use a different system (winner-take-all) that will result in their nomination being clinched much earlier than the Democratic nomination.

  7. 9

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    In general, the superdelegates likely will tip toward Hillary, as she is the candidate favored by much of the party establishment.

  8. 10

    Joel spews:

    Anyone have any thoughts on a hypothetical Obama-Edwards ticket?? Do you think Edwards would do it again?

    I can’t remember how well he polls in the south though. Maybe a Obama-Webb ticket would be good?

  9. 12

    spews:

    @5…L-L…

    “Thank God for Cynthia McKinney…”

    CYNTHIA McKINNEY???

    There is a God!

    Decimated in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in a re-election bid to Congress, she hops to the Greens (some parties simply have no standards at all!) as a Prexy candidate.

    And don’t forget: Cynthia McKinney is a 9/11 truther, so we’ll have that to debate again only this time with an ultra lib to serve as the poster child for that fantasy.

    Cynthia McKinney???

    Ohmygawd!

    Don’t forget how she punched out a Capitol police officer and called Al Gore racist for not having enough blacks in his campaign.

    Please! HA Happy Hooligans disappointed by Lost John’s abandonment of the race (there is a God in that too), jump on the McKinney bus; we’d all have an HA Happy Hoolihowl over that!

    Too sweet!

    The Piper

  10. 13

    rhp6033 spews:

    I liked Edwards too, but I guess it was unrealistic that he would have won the Democratic nomination, barring any self-destruct actions on the part of Clinton or Obama. There was just too much of a media push towards having this be a historical election which put either a woman or a black man in the White House. With Edwards, lots of the new young/women voters would have been disenchanted, thinking that somehow the “establishment” had once again pushed a woman and a black man aside to put one of their own in office, instead.

    I had hoped that we were well beyond that point now, and could have been talking about ideas, instead.

    As I’ve said before, I would have been happy with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards as the party nominee or as President. I’m leaning a slight bit towards Hillary, simply because all the negatives are already well known, and we won’t get any surprises during the general election. After the years of Republican-led investigations of the Clinton White House, there’s nothing left to disclose. With Obama, you can expect a lot of new mud to be thrown at him by Rove & Associates, and he might have to waste a lot of time on the defensive. Anything which takes the voter’s attention away from the complete failure of the Republican party in leading this country isn’t good. (Note: a fellow board member of a non-profit organization I work with just forwarded (broadcast) another one of those e-mails with lots of false Obama information. I’ll have to have a talk with her at the meeting tonight).

    As for Vice President, Democrats have had a lot of problems balancing the ticket lately. We need someone who balances the ticket both philosophically and geographically, without surrendering completely (as with Lieberman). Just as imporant, they must be able to carry their own state for the ticket, if not the whole region.

    I don’t see Hillary agreeing to a vice-Presidential spot, because I don’t see her looking as this as a stepping-stone to another bid in 2016. If she couldn’t get the nomination this time, with all the party organization, funding, and support behind her, then it isn’t going to happen.

    Edwards might also be disinclined to make another vice-presidential run, he’s tried that before and it isn’t a lot of fun, and all he will have to show for it, even if he wins, is being President of the Senate and attending a lot of funerals. Besides, he’s got his wife’s health to consider. If he isn’t going to get the big prize, he might decide it’s not worth the effort.

    Ward is an interesting idea – He’s got prior government experience, a military and war record, is a conservative Democrat and is really, really, pissed off at the Republicans. Perhaps a bit of a loose cannon, though – he tends to say what he thinks and think what he says, and he’s not above letting everyone know how unhappy he is if you don’t agree with him. But it might make a nice contrast to the “lofty” Obama, who could keep the high road while Webb hit back at the Republican propoganda.

  11. 15

    spews:

    Well, I hate to disappoint the readers of this blog, but Edwards dropping out of the race is the BEST thing that could have happened to the Democratic Party this year.

    Why? Well, a certain percentage of Americans will vote for the Republican no matter what, and a very similar percentage of Americans will vote for the Democrat no matter what. That means that elections are decided by those that don’t identify with a particular party.

    When it comes to identifying with swing voters, the ONLY Republican candidate that has a chance is John McCain. Guess what? He’s getting the nomination.

    Now the question is, who COULD he beat, considering that it isn’t a very good year to be a Republican? Obama? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem very likely considering that Obama has a strong message, relates well with voters, and voters are ready to make a historic vote. Hilary? Again, maybe, but voters are likely to think back to the 1990s which were, well, a properous time for our country. The people that absolutely hate Hilary are not in the majority, and probably would not have voted Democrat anyway. Now, that leaves Edwards… I do not see independent voters buying into Edwards class warfare / James Sokolove approach. Yes, it’s easy to blame the big guy for all of your problems, and yes, you can sue them too. But, most Americans want to be that big guy someday, and it loses some luster when trial lawyers look to make a buck from “taking down” anybody successful, I mean, corporate fatcats.

    In all reality, the Republican Party’s best chance of getting another 4 years in the White House was a McCain-Edwards matchup. I dare say that would have been a landslide.

    Well, anyway, enjoy your caucus, I respect your party’s Constitutional Right to choose candidates that are unelectable (Edwards would have won this state the way Kerry did 4 years ago).

  12. 16

    Dems are spineless and Piper supports torture spews:

    Piper over in the Reichert thread I’m talking about you as an amoral supporter and enabler of torture. C’mon over and share your views with us.

    Bush tortures people and kills civilians including children
    Piper enables and supports Bush
    therefore Piper supports and enables torture and killing civilians including children.

    Piper is an amoral asshole.

  13. 17

    Particle Man spews:

    N, would you not agree that Obama and Clinton can now start running against McCain and that this will change the model used for all the match up projections. My view is that regardless of which of the two we end up with, we will be stronger with more time in this phase than if we got down to two later or at the convention. I would rather see a GOP candidate other than McCane but doubt this is what we will see. And, I think the raw turnout of voters we have been seeing is just cause to question the early match up numbers that we have been fretting over.

  14. 18

    spews:

    @15
    Steven,
    I’m not convinced that McCain can beat anyone the Democrats nominate. The grassroots support for the GOP this year is practically nonexistent. Even in South Carolina, one of the reddest states in the country, more Democrats turned out for the primary than Republicans.

    http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/14456777.html

    And with the economy getting worse everywhere, this disparity is just going to get amplified. 2008 is going to be a rough year for the Republicans.

  15. 19

    Richard Pope spews:

    I think Obama is the stronger Democratic candidate in the general election, and would also get more good accomplished for America than Clinton. Clinton will galvanize Republican support and turn off independent voters, especially if the Republicans pick McCain. Obama will do well among independent voters and even pick off a few Republicans here and there. McCain is looking a bit stronger than both Clinton and Obama in most national polls right now, but I think Obama has a better chance of actually winning a national election against McCain, than does Clinton.

    But I am also interested for a President to do a good job for America after taking office. I disagree with Roger Rabbit’s analysis. If Clinton wants to wage war against the Republicans, then probably very little will be accomplished. Her husband had pretty good Democratic numbers in Congress during 1993-94, and started off with a pretty cooperative attitude, and managed to get very little progressive things accomplished, even during his first two years before the GOP took over Congress. We need an Obama to actually work with Congress and get legislation passed. I see Obama actually being able to build the coaltions needed to pass things through Congress — as well as being a bit more progressive than Clinton in any event.

    As for running mates, I think Webb would be an excellent choice for Obama. Webb could at least carry his own state of Virginia for the ticket — or at least one would hope. As for Edwards, he didn’t think he could win re-election to the Senate in 2004 and didn’t come anywhere close to putting North Carolina into the Democratic column for President. Why should either Clinton or Obama choose Edwards for VP? Maybe for the Cabinet, but that is a different issue.

    By contrast, Clinton would probably be forced to pick Obama as her running mate. She would have to make up for the internally divisive politics, reach out to a key component of the base which she (and her husband) has rubbed the wrong way, and pick someone with charisma and an appeal to the independents. If she does this, she may actually be able to win in November, and will also be able to sell her programs better to the public and Congress if she wins and takes office.

  16. 20

    Richard Pope spews:

    Lee @ 18

    South Carolina is interesting, but look at Florida. Tends to be a swing state in presidential elections. 300,000 more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. But 200,000 more people voted in the Republican primary, than in the Democratic primary yesterday.

  17. 21

    spews:

    @20…RP…

    Because the Demo primary wasn’t worth a bucket of warm piss, in the words of John Nance Garner.

    Why vote when it doesn’t count? The Republican primary was a winner-take-all, this counts! contest. The DNC stripped Florida’s primary of anything substantive, yet HRC still trolloped on the stage like a hoochie-momma claiming some great victory after she reneged on her own pledge to eschew campaigning in the state.

    “I’ll get you my pretty!” fits her to a “T.”

    Resist the tempatation to over-analyze…

    The Piper

  18. 22

    spews:

    @19…RP…

    And Webb packs his own heat, so no need for Secret Service protection!

    Just don’t ask him to go through any airport TSA security checks any time soon.

    The Piper

  19. 24

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @15 You left out one little detail from your otherwise competent analysis: When voters find out McCain wants to start a war with Iran, they’ll flock to the Democratic candidate — regardless of who it is. Even Edwards would have beat McCain in that scenario.

  20. 25

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    McCain’s stated intention of continuing to occupy Iraq for years and years to come also will not sit well with voters. And, McCain has studiously avoided talking about the economy in this campaign, and for good reason — he doesn’t know a damn thing about it. I agree McCain is the strongest (and best) candidate the GOPers have, but I don’t think he can beat any Democratic contender in November. Too many weaknesses. Plus, the pandering to the far right he did to get the nomination will cost him many independent votes.

  21. 26

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @18 I think a year from now GOP professionals will be looking at the smoking ruins of their party wondering if it’s going to survive.

  22. 27

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    Lee, Darryl: Why doesn’t poster #16 get whacked?

    I think it’s telling Clueless is silent. Maybe without Edwards he’s clueless? I want to see who is his “candidate” now…

    Now that I think about it he is Clueless…

  23. 28

    ewp spews:

    As another Edwards supporter who will now need to decide between Clinton and Obama, sorry Mike Gravel, I’ll be doing some serious thinking before our caucus. I like the way that Obama is able to generate enthusiasm and energy among so many, especially young voters who haven’t participated much in the past. But my misgivings come from the disconnect between Obama’s demeanor and speeches, and his actual policies. He’s surrounded himself with advisors, especially economists, that could easily be advising the GOP. His plan for universal health care is tepid at best. He’s talked about partial privitization of social security, and his response to the mortgage crisis was the weakest of the three candidates. Obama comes across as a better looking and more articulate version of Tom Daschle. Despite her sometimes sharp elbows, Clinton’s policies are actually much more progressive in most areas than Obama’s. Both will undoubtably be far superior presidents than Bush has been, and better than any GOP candidate would be. But that’s not setting the bar very high.
    So, do you go with the guy who gives invigorating speeches and can probably draw more independents to the Dem ticket, and just hope that his cabinet is more progressive than his campaign advisors? Or do you go with the more polarizing Clinton, who has more progressive policies, and is well prepared to defend against the right wing smear machine? I guess we have a week or so to decide.

  24. 29

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @19 You’re welcome to disagree with me, Richard, and I sure wish I could think the same way you do. But considering the GOP’s track record since 1994, it’s impossible to believe anything can be gained by attempting to business with them. The GOP has chosen to adopt a Stalinist model of conducting politics, and until that party either changes or is destroyed, we’ve got to be prepared to walk over them if we want to get anything done. And there is a lot needing doing. So, much as I like Obama, I don’t think we can afford him just yet. This is a case where you have to send in the tank before the infantry can advance.

  25. 31

    Harold spews:

    And they both appear to be smarter than me, one of the only litmus tests beyond party identification I absolutely apply to presidential candidates.

    Wow, you are dumber than I thought. Or maybe, you are just star-struck by the two inexperienced senators.

  26. 36

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    So, my friends, what’s this Uncommitted’s experience and what does he/she/it stand for?

  27. 37

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I was a state delegate for three consecutive conventions back in the ’80s and back then a lot of delegates tried to play this “uncommitted” game. It’s bullshit. You’re either for someone, or you’re for nothing. It’s okay to take as much time as you need to make up your mind, but when it’s time to vote, an “uncommitted” vote is a non-vote. I’ll never support an “uncommitted” in my caucus because I have no idea what that person might do farther along in the process, so I’m not going to let him/her represent me. That’s like signing a blank check. Cripes, he/she might vote for Lyndon LaRouche! If a person who wants to be elected as a delegate can’t/won’t tell me who they support, then I’ll give my vote to someone who will.

  28. 38

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @21 How did she renege on her pledge not to campaign in Florida? She stayed out of Florida until the polls were closed, then went down there to claim her victory. That’s not campaigning.

  29. 39

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @14, Lee. Well, perhaps. But that is setting the bar pretty low if you ask me.

    Obama-Webb. Great ticket.

    Piper: You wanna’ bet if McCain gets the nomination, he selects a VP running mate younger than he is? I’ll lay you Pope odds: 12-1.

  30. 42

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @28 I made that decision a couple weeks ago. I agonized over it for months, but in retrospect, it seems like an easy decision — for all the reasons you stated and some additional ones. I do hope Obama will stick around — I’m confident he’s going to become a great senator over the next 8 years — and I’d like to see him run for president again … under different circumstances than post-chimp.

  31. 43

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    As a senior citizen, I have concerns about how far Obama is willing to go to pander to youthful voters at the expense of my age group. I paid the taxes and played by the rules all my life, and it’s too late for me to go back and do it differently if another generation decides they don’t want to honor the commitments my government made to me. I’m going to need Social Security and Medicare, and it’s not on the bargaining table as far as I’m concerned.

  32. 45

    spews:

    goldy…….i find it fascinating that john “richer than god” edwards has so little decency that he didn’t just drop out of the race, he “suspended” it. that means that he gets matching [think your tax dollars here] funds to close down all his little storefronts. that is an expensive process with all the lawyers involved.don’t you think that is just a little smarmy to say the least?
    edwards? really? you wanted edwards?
    i told you all that we would have another republican in the white house……….heh heh heh.
    it doesn’t even matter which one you guys nominate now….they can’t beat McCain. hillary or obama? that’s just not going to happen.california will bump obama right out of the running….
    and roger, bill clinton cannot be on the supreme court [thank the gods!] as he lost his license, remember?
    the best place for bill clinton is in a trailer park in the ozarks where he would fit right in.
    or maybe not…they probably have more morals than he does………

  33. 46

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @39 12:1? I’d think you could give better odds than that! Given how hard it would be to find a still-breathing Republican older than McCain.

  34. 47

    YLB spews:

    Hey PuddyStupid – Fuck you!!!!

    I’m for Obama.

    Just stick with your silly-assed R’s. They read the same right wing bullshit you do. What’s not to like for you?

    Huck? So what if he believes in the rapture and goes to church on Sunday?

    McCain? So what if you wingnuts blamed him for Nov 2006?

    Romney? So what if some in his faith believe Jesus and Satan are brothers? What do you believe about Catholics? Raygun was a Catholic.

    Paul? Ok I understand. Paul doesn’t support mass killing and torturing unless it passes constitutional muster, i.e. the stuff that gets you off needs to be dictated by edict from your Dear Leader, the preznit.

    We don’t need nor do we want your vote.

  35. 48

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @45 john “richer than god” edwards

    You can’t be serious. He’s worth only $40 million. He’d have to be worth 30, 40, or 50 times that to be in the same league as people like Romney and Bloomberg. 40 mil is peanuts nowadays.

  36. 49

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Cripes, Romney is spending more than that on his campaign out of his own pocket. For a Republican like Romney, 40 million is his hobby budget.

  37. 50

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @47 “Huck? So what if he believes in the rapture and goes to church on Sunday?”

    I believe in the rapture, too! In fact, I can’t wait for it to get here! Flash – bang – 144,000 Republicans gone in an instant! Not enough, but it’s a start.

  38. 51

    Yeah spews:

    I will still preference for Edwards. If not viable, I’m likely to go uncomitted or go home. I have pluses and minuses on both. If I do chose, it will likely be Hillary over Obama.

  39. 52

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    ChristmasGhost – Pelletizer has no memory… forgets the big picture and focuses on the little mundane things…

  40. 53

    spews:

    roger……..i heard that romney spent 50 million on ads alone just in florida. good to know that you can’t buy a race still….
    and 40 million is still alot of money. frankly i think john edwards is as empty a suit as has come along in years. his wife is dying and he is spending time and money on himself rather than his family [i see now why goldy felt that simpatico with him] instead of doing what is right.he would have been a nightmare for america.the funny part? he was the only one that you guys might have gotten elected.
    obama is going to bite it in california because of all the hard work you dems have done over the last two decades getting illegal aliens able to vote.hispanics will kick him to the curb in five seconds…they just simply won’t vote for him.
    interesting and terribly amusing for me how everything the dems have pulled since the “clinton years” is now coming back to bite them. just the sound bite of obama saying “i can’t believe that bill clinton is this dishonest” is rich. who would possibly elect a president that is that naive? naive or a liar.

  41. 55

    Smartypants spews:

    At the caucus I’ll initially state my preference for Edwards, then will go with Obama. While I like Clinton’s “take no prisoners” response to attackers, I’ve seen how viscerally she is hated when I visit family in the midwest. Her potential for picking up any moderate Republican or moderate votes is comparatively limited.

    Obama’s best chance will be if he chooses a high profile VP with military experience. Jim Webb would be great, so would Wesley Clark. Round that out with Bill Richardson as Secretary of State and John Edwards as Attorney General — that would be the foundation of a truly kick-ass administration.

  42. 56

    spews:

    puddy……

    It made me wonder: Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along?” LA times….

    god…too funny. they really have been this dumb? gosh…and i just thought they were amoral losers like the clintons. pardon me while i call my dearest [and most liberal] friend to apologize to her for thinking she had shaky morals. now i know she’s just stupid.
    BWAA HAA HAA……..

  43. 57

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    Clueless – You sure spent soooooooo much time on the R candidates and buh-bye Edwards…

    You are a clueless fool. Everytime you open your fingers you prove your stupidity.

  44. 58

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    Clueless: Fuck me? Thanks for telling me a smart black man provides an interest to you. Trust me you’ll touch me with your needler and you’re too stupid to be my friend……

  45. 59

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Ghost opines: “…..and roger, bill clinton cannot be on the supreme court [thank the gods!] as he lost his license, remember?”

    Actually, yes he can serve on the Court subject to nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. You are factually incorrect, as usual.

  46. 60

    YellowPup spews:

    C’mon, Goldy: you have to support Obama. You’ve considered this on your show: if HRC wins, you’ll have to spend 8 years defending her against the righty hoards on HA and/or KIRO!

    I’m with Richard Pope @19 on the overall point, but I disagree about Webb. There were/are too many candidates from the legislative branch in this race, which I think is a sign of feebleness within the party. Also, look at what happened with Gore when he picked a conservative to run with in 00. To think that Lieberman could have been VP [shudder].

  47. 61

    YLB spews:

    PuddyStupid – you live up to your name. After years of coming here and demonizing Dems with the wingnut bullshit you’re addicted to – you say you want to vote for a Dem for Preznit.

    How fucking ridiculous can you look to your ugly wingnut crowd?

    They’re all saying Obama’s a Muslim and took his oath of office on a Koran. This is YOUR crowd.

    You’re such a fucking fool!!!

  48. 62

    rhp6033 spews:

    PS at 22: Well, if Webb is V.P., he wouldn’t have to go through airport security. At least not for the next eight years.

    And I think RR is right. The Republicans had their chance to work cooperatively with the Democrats, and they rather arrogantly, assuming that they had a “perpetual Republican majority”, refused to even let them sit in on the discussions. Even after the Democrats take back control of Congress in 2006, the entire 2007 year was spent with Bush refusing to compromise on any issue of substance, instead insisting on vetoing any bill which didn’t pretty much match with his own draft of the bill.

    The solution to any need for compromising with the Republicans is to get them out of office. All we need to do is pick up ten seats in the Senate, plus the Presidency, and the Republicans are a lame-duck political party. They can then join the ranks of the Whigs and the DoDo birds in the history books. I, for one, will do everything I can to make sure that happens.

    If they want to try to form a new party they are welcome to try, but I suspect that with the various contradictory wings of the Republican Party spinning out from the center, it will be impossible for them to do so. The Libertarians, Fiscal Conservatives, Evangelicals, and Hawks are all working at cross-purposes to one another. Holding it together by fear of a Democratic majority doesn’t work anymore, as everyone realizes that nothing is as bad as what happened when you combined a Republican Congress, Presidency, and Supreme Court.

  49. 63

    rhp6033 spews:

    I will give this to McCaine: He may be a Hawk, but at least he’s not a ChickenHawk, like the current Pres. Bush.

  50. 65

    spews:

    @39…PTBAA…

    Hell, that’s a sucker bet! Methusallah is younger than McCain! Watch him go for someone to make the more conservative members of the party comfortable with him.

    The Piper

  51. 66

    rhp6033 spews:

    I heard something funny a couple of days ago. Somebody was saying they couldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because, you know, her husband was “an adulterer”. I asked her what that had to do with Hillary, who has never been accused of adultery. “Well, I heard it on the radio, and everyone there agreed that if she couldn’t control her husband, then she wasn’t fit to be President”.

    Obviously, a listener to right-wing talk radio.

    After stiffling my laughter, I asked her if being an adulterer was worse than being the spouse of an adulterer. She admitted that it was. I also asked if a person who had been married only once would be a better President than one who had been divorced and remarried. She said they would. Then I pointed out that Hillary and Obama have each been only married once, neither has been accused of committing adultery. On the Republican side, however….

  52. 68

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    Clueless – Pot meet Kettle. You guzzle like a drunkard the warm with sticky kool-aid!!!!

    When you de-couple yourself from George Soros, he who brags that he pays no income taxes and wants to provide psychodelic and psychotropic drugs the little kids of america…

    Yes, he’s your man1!!

  53. 69

    spews:

    puddy…….
    ” But the move angered the state chapter of NOW, which called Kennedy’s decision the “greatest betrayal.”

    leave it to the hairy legs to miss the big picture. his GREATEST betrayal ,don’t ya think, was when he killed a young woman and worried only about his own ample behind and trust fund???
    i meam…i’m just sayin’….
    man, puddy, this election is really going to be fun!

    big tent? more like “low rent”…….

  54. 72

    Blue John spews:

    Personally, I am trusting Hillary less and less. It feels like she will lie, cheat and steal, and do anything she can to get elected. The latest stunt she is trying to pull by wanting to change the agreed upon ground rules and allow the Florida delegates, because they mostly go for her has confirmed that I do NOT want her as my candidate. I will vote for her for prez cause the repubs are worse, but I won’t canvas or give her or the democratic party my money. I don’t want a choice between bad or worse. I’m starting to understand why the conservatives hate Hillary so much. It’s easy to viscerally dislike her and her tactics.
    I’m voting for Obama.

    One more observation. No moderate republican will vote for Hillary, but they might vote for Obama.

  55. 74

    spews:

    blue john….well said ,BUT, obama will be taken out by the huge hispanic [and korean, and chinese and vietnamese] vote in california that the dems have been building up for years.i see him as president in 8 years.
    he’s still young and maybe by that time he will actually have a record he can run on and not just pretty speeches….and maybe by that time the dems will have learned their lesson: that the end DOES NOT justify the means…..
    i’ll bet that a lot of the dems are already wondering how they can electrify that border fence without anyone screaming about it. and sanchez has to go….whew, that will be great for california.
    it all works out in the end.
    would dems really have a problem with mccain?

  56. 75

    spews:

    @71
    Why not?

    http://encarta.msn.com/encyclo.....tates.html

    The Constitution does not specify formal qualifications for membership on the Supreme Court. From the beginning, though, justices have all been lawyers, and most pursued legal and political careers before serving on the Court. Many justices served as members of Congress, governors, or members of the Cabinet. One president, William Howard Taft, was later appointed chief justice.

  57. 76

    spews:

    lee….simply because, though in past history you did not have to be an attorney,IF you are one ,you do have to be one IN GOOD STANDING to serve on the court.
    and can you imagine him getting through the vetting process? come on! stop kidding around……

  58. 77

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    Blue John: Isn’t this the tag line of Heathen Sinner?

    “Personally, I am trusting Hillary less and less. It feels like she will lie, cheat and steal, and do anything she can to get elected.”

    Just as the LA Times said…

  59. 78

    I Try My Best To Be Just Like I Am spews:

    “Hard-edged political savvy” v. “transformational leader” for the Democratic presidential nominee. Hey, its 1960 all over again

  60. 79

    spews:

    @76
    simply because

    What are you, 5?

    though in past history you did not have to be an attorney,IF you are one ,you do have to be one IN GOOD STANDING to serve on the court

    So the only people who can’t serve on the Supreme Court are attorneys who are no longer in good standing? But truck drivers and electricians are ok? My god, how do you even operate a keyboard?

    and can you imagine him getting through the vetting process? come on! stop kidding around……

    In a Senate dominated by Democrats? Yes, I can imagine that. I’m obviously not predicting it will happen, but you have no basis for saying that he is unable to sit on the Supreme Court. You are, as always, completely full of shit.

  61. 80

    spews:

    lee…panties in a bunch much these days? perhaps you should consider going “commando” for the rest of this campaign. i am just thinking about your personal health here…..
    i guess you don’t understand how it works. a regular guy is just a regular guy…..CLEAN. clinton has had his license to practice law removed FOR A REASON.
    see the difference?
    and may i suggest before you rant on and on with your peckish little ad hominem attacks….try to remember that you are a representative for the liberals.
    oh, wait…never mind…..
    heh heh heh
    where is your sense of humor?

  62. 81

    ArtFart spews:

    53 Ghostie, what you bring up in your first paragraph illustrates that Romney is really just a twit with pretty hair and a big bankroll. BUY elections in Florida? Republicans don’t BUY elections…..they STEAL them.

    As to your second paragraph, allowing that you lapse completely into parroting the delusional nonsense from your mentors on Faux News and right wing talk radio, if you’re talking about who California Democrats are likely to vote for in the primary, rich (and even not-so-rich) white liberals in the entertainment industry probably like Hillary, and the Hispanic citizens will support whoever they think will work against the Republican-generated hysteria that works to treat them like shit. The blacks throughout the state will likely have an interest in the same issue because of the relationship (evidenced by your own accusation) to Jim Crow.

  63. 82

    spews:

    @74
    While you’re bringing the stupid and I have some extra time this afternoon…

    blue john….well said ,BUT, obama will be taken out by the huge hispanic [and korean, and chinese and vietnamese] vote in california that the dems have been building up for years.

    What are you talking about? Are you saying they’re going to vote against Obama because the Democrats are recruiting them? What?

    i see him as president in 8 years.
    he’s still young and maybe by that time he will actually have a record he can run on and not just pretty speeches….and maybe by that time the dems will have learned their lesson: that the end DOES NOT justify the means…..

    What exactly is your admonition about the ends not justifying the means in reference to?

    i’ll bet that a lot of the dems are already wondering how they can electrify that border fence without anyone screaming about it.

    What in god’s name are you talking about? Anti-immigration hysteria is a losing cause even within the Republican party (look at what happened to Romney in Florida yesterday). If immigration is such a hot button issue, then how come “Amnesty” McCain is winning everywhere? By being such an anti-immigrant nutbag, you are WAY outside of the American mainstream.

    and sanchez has to go….whew, that will be great for california. it all works out in the end.

    The only thing I see happening in the end is a series of therapists getting rich off of you.

    would dems really have a problem with mccain?

    I’ve admired John McCain for a long time. I think he has been courageous at times in the past for standing up to the crazies in his own party, but he’s selling himself out now, and his position on the war is incredibly indefensible and massively detached from reality. He’s become the establishment candidate who is guaranteed to continue the disastrous status quo, and there’s really no chance he’ll get my vote that way.

  64. 83

    G Davis spews:

    Goldy, how do you vote for the same people to fix the same problems we’ve been having for decades and expect anything to change in the way we’re governed?

    How do we decide who’s blowing smoke with campaign rhetoric and who’s telling us how they would approach governing us?

    Who has changed their stances and who has told us consistently what they believe?

    The Clintons ran on a number of things the first time around that never got more than lip service once they were in office.

    They have now campaigned on largely the same platform with a few changes along the way since they weren’t sitting well with primary voters (stance on drivers licenses for illegals, Florida delegates promise to Iowa, NH…read their local papers…are clear recent examples).

    We are not guaranteed anything with Obama to be sure. But we know what the Clintons will do…the most politically expedient.

    Obama has proven he can organize a ground game unparalleled which can do nothing but give us optimism about his ability to convince people of his agenda. His promise is based on being able to build a huge majority of disparate groups together to actually solve some of our huge problems.

    We all agree health care is a mess. Do we go with a candidate that tries to force everyone to buy what the insurance companies are offering or do we start remaking the entire system based on going around the insurance industry? The Mass health care plan that the Clintons propose is NOT working. Right now they are debating how much additional debt the state is willing to take on to cover the way too high costs of the monthly premiums that folks simply can’t afford, the whole system is n jeopardy. What is progressive about that?

    Do we vote for a candidate that will reenergize the Mitch McConnell hard right faction to oppose EVERY move we try to make, or do we vote for a candidate that has the possibility of building such a huge majority of common thought that the McConnell hard right has no voice?

    Do we keep electing the same folks and expect different results or do we take a leap of faith on a newcomer with such high ceiling potential?

    Do we with stick with the known, willing to accept the same gridlock or do we vote for the potential of such increased energy in our governing that it cannot be refused?

    I guess it depends on how you view your government.

  65. 84

    ArtFart spews:

    82 “The only thing I see happening in the end is a series of therapists getting rich off of you.”

    Naaah. Lee, remember she lives in Humbolt County. That’s so far off in the middle of nowhere that for the most part, the psychotics only bother each other.

  66. 85

    spews:

    @80
    lee…panties in a bunch much these days?

    You’re just a retard giving me material.

    perhaps you should consider going “commando” for the rest of this campaign

    I love how you’re obsessed with my junk.

    i am just thinking about your personal health here…..

    Maybe you should be worrying more about your own mental health.

    i guess you don’t understand how it works. a regular guy is just a regular guy…..CLEAN. clinton has had his license to practice law removed FOR A REASON.

    That’s completely irrelevant to whether or not he can sit on the Supreme Court, and you know it. Do I need to provide the link again?

    see the difference?

    What difference? What you’re saying does not make any sense whatsoever. Let me repeat: there are no formal qualifications for being seated on the Supreme Court. Period. Proud ass is right. You are wrong. Deal with it.

    and may i suggest before you rant on and on with your peckish little ad hominem attacks….try to remember that you are a representative for the liberals.
    oh, wait…never mind…..

    How about this: I’ll keep being a representative for the liberals and you keep being a representative for the conservatives, and we’ll see which side is more embarrassed in the end.

    where is your sense of humor?

    It’s laughing hysterically at how goddamn stupid you are.

  67. 86

    spews:

    81 and 82…what i am saying is the reality of the situation. hispanics will not vote for a black guy. sad but true….ditto for the asian vote.
    scream all you want about it..but it isn’t exactly news to anyone but you.
    and just to clear up a few misconceptions. i do not watch fox regularly [ too annoying] nor do i listen to talk radio of any kind. i’m actually listening to dave brubeck right now….blue rondo a la turk.
    and romney is a twit…don’t you agree?
    “end not justifying means”………a reference to the dem strategy of importing voters from across the border. think loretta sanchez.this is a california thing…so you may not be aware of it.
    unlike you, i do not have a lot of free time this afternoon due to an acquisition contract i am working on. yes…evil old me, buying another company………

  68. 87

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    john’s exit helps both candidates. The group that would never vote for a black still has hillary. The group that would never vote for a woman still has obama.

  69. 88

    YLB spews:

    When you de-couple yourself from George Soros,

    Oh poor little Pudster are you so scceeeeeeeeeered of George Soros? All the millions from Scaife-Coors-Koch-Perry-Olin-Smith-Richardson-Murdoch-Moon-Adelson et al. is not enough to overcome George Soros?

    The presses churning out right wing bullshit 24/7 make a nice re-assuring blankie for little Pudster and his pinhead – quickly dissolving into brain farts.

    Loser.

  70. 89

    grasshoppah!! spews:

    re 12: 9/11 was the work of Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald. Each was acting independently as disgruntles Potal workers.

    Anyone who thinks differently is a conspiracy nut.

  71. 92

    YLB spews:

    The group that would never vote for a black…The group that would never vote for a woman

    Are part of the thirty percent crowd under Bush and are united under McCain or Romney.

  72. 95

    spews:

    @86
    what i am saying is the reality of the situation. hispanics will not vote for a black guy. sad but true….ditto for the asian vote.
    scream all you want about it..but it isn’t exactly news to anyone but you.

    In the primary, I’m aware that Clinton is doing better among Asians and Hispanics, but against a GOP candidate, Obama will do just fine among those groups.

    “end not justifying means”………a reference to the dem strategy of importing voters from across the border. think loretta sanchez.this is a california thing…so you may not be aware of it.

    You cannot possibly believe that immigration patterns are being driven by Democrats trying to get more votes. No one is that stupid.

    unlike you, i do not have a lot of free time this afternoon due to an acquisition contract i am working on. yes…evil old me, buying another company………

    You’re not so much evil as crazy. There’s a difference. A lot of crazy people have been able to succeed in certain jobs. Congrats on your acquisition.

  73. 96

    YLB spews:

    Trust me you’ll touch me with your needler and you’re too stupid to be my friend……

    Fuck you again. I’ve been responding to your lame ass taunts and stupidity.

    And I shouldn’t.

  74. 97

    ArtFart spews:

    86 “………a reference to the dem strategy of importing voters from across the border. think loretta sanchez.”

    After all these years, the extreme right still chants this mantra, instead of coming to grips with the fact that even the Orange County rednecks got scared to death of “B1 Bob”.

  75. 98

    Noble spews:

    Does it bother anyone else that Hillary and Bill have been telling lies about fellow democrat Obama? Apparently it bothered Senator Kennedy.

  76. 99

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    @76: CG: “lee….simply because, though in past history you did not have to be an attorney,IF you are one ,you do have to be one IN GOOD STANDING to serve on the court.”

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. But keep parading your ignorance.

  77. 100

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    Clueless: My lame ass taunts?

    I provide historical facts direct from real web sites. You rely on kool-aid!

    You are a American History boob.

    You are the biggest left-wing idiot here.

    As I said God had you choose Clueless because you are C L U E L E S S

  78. 101

    THE Puddybud The Prognosticator... spews:

    Noble: Hell no… These suckas are the extreme 16%ers. They’ll eat their own to win…

  79. 102

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    To clarify: You have to be in good standing with the SC bar to ARGUE cases before the Supremes. Clinton lost this privilige following his disbarrment to practice law in Arkansas.

    However, to be nominated and confirmed to the Court, this is irrelvant. You could be a disbarred drunk and, politics willing, sit on the Supreme Court.

  80. 103

    YLB spews:

    I provide historical facts

    Of no relevance, i.e. shit-headed noise.

    You rely on kool-aid!

    You project much.

    You are the biggest left-wing idiot here.

    You’re just an idiot. You’re an embarrassment even to “right wing”.

    November is going to be very satisfying Stupes.

  81. 104

    spews:

    lee@95….WOW. pushed a button ,did i? why all the anger?
    so, now, you have elevated yourself to the level of therapist and decided i am “crazy” have you?.that’s quite interesting. and why am i crazy again? because i don’t agree with you?
    have you heard the phrase “we can agree to disagree”?
    this line is an all time classic…”You’re not so much evil as crazy. There’s a difference. A lot of crazy people have been able to succeed in certain jobs. Congrats on your acquisition.”
    you have absolutely no basis for for this conclusion. it’s just more of lee talking out of his ass….something you seem to be doing more and more lately and on a much more shrill level. why? why are you so threatened by me?
    i think, actually, that you and i are on the same page on a lot of issues. and though i know you are still young you really should have figured out by now that name calling and hissy fits are for kids. they don’t accomplish anything other than to make you look ignorant. and i don’t think you are.
    i love the “certain jobs” part…that really made me laugh.you mean certain jobs such as “board of directors,CMS and vice president”?
    honey, i don’t think you could keep up with my schedule for even a day…….

  82. 105

    spews:

    Why would Frat Boy Bill want to sit on SCOTUS anyway? Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn’t his type, and the first Monday in October would be good chick chasin’ since HRC would be hunkered down in the Oval Office (I wonder if she’ll have that carpet replaced?).

    Can you see the confirmation hearings? Digging through every legal issue in his life? The “deals” in Arkansas and all those women???

    Who needs Desperate Houswives? Come to think of it, I’ll bet he’s hit on Teri Hatcher, or would like to!

    The Piper

  83. 106

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    “Come to think of it, I’ll bet he’s hit on Teri Hatcher”

    How much you wanna’ bet, chickenliver?

    I’ll take, “Piper scurrilous, snide, off-base, partisan, and frankly and simply untrue to the point of verging on certifiably insane low charges for ten thousand, Alex. Thanks.”

    Braaaaacka, braaaaaacka, bbbbrrraWWWWWWWWK! Coward.

  84. 107

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    Cracked and corny Piper Scott: “Why would Frat Boy Bill…”

    You mean Alpha Phi Omega…founded by BOY SCOUTS, the ‘frat’ that does not have ‘frat’ houses, the ‘frat’ that values community service, that Frat you flatulent fuck?

  85. 108

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    “Can you see the confirmation hearings?”

    Why yes indeed. A Democratic Senate and a Democratic President stick it up your partisan ass.

    Pray it doesn’t happen, Pip. Property values in your neighborhood will sink if this occurs and your residency there becomes common knowledge.

  86. 109

    spews:

    @104
    You really think I’m threatened by you? You stated something that was factually incorrect and I corrected you. You continued to maintain that you weren’t wrong even though it was blatant obvious that you were.

    In anyone’s book, that’s crazy. Please, get some help.

    And by the way, I work a full time job as a computer programmer (where I’ve just recently worked over the weekend and until 2AM last night), blog at three different sites, play in a co-rec soccer league, work with several groups in Seattle, and I’m still working on several home improvement projects on my house. I could quite easily keep up with your schedule, champ.

  87. 110

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    “Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn’t his type…”

    How would you know? You give Bill blowjobs, too? When’s the book coming out?

  88. 111

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    “You stated something that was factually incorrect and I corrected you.”

    Hey, hey, hey….well sick’em, Lee.

  89. 112

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    Looky here! Christmasghost is a bigtime VC, and claims: “i do not have a lot of free time this afternoon due to an acquisition contract…”

    What? Akin to paint by numbers? Acquiring a dry cleaners? You make this claim, I say prove it. As to your time management, we have posts by you at…

    1:54
    2:08
    2:16
    2:55
    2:57
    3:04
    3:08
    3:21
    3:33
    3:37
    3:37 (twice in one minute)

    ….followed by a nap and a snack no doubt to produce your monumental, and really so stupid that one can only gasp in disbelief ‘project much?’ sound bite @ 6:06.

    Yes. Obviously a very busy afternoon filling in the blanks.

    Whadda’ putz.

  90. 113

    spews:

    lee…and you “corrected” me with what? your opinion? wow…that’s really something alright.how about facts?
    lee…i am not the one screaming am i? i would say that you are threatened…or at least you are acting like it.
    look, lee, anyone that makes a stupid statement like this* about someone they don’t even know is not only rude but ignorant.
    *In anyone’s book, that’s crazy. Please, get some help.*
    it’s a silly and childish shot when you really don’t have anything to say.
    next time you “correct” someone, why don’t you try using FACTS, because the last time i checked, google isn’t exactly putting you out there as the go to guy for all things that need knowing.
    legend in one’s own mind comes to mind………

  91. 114

    spews:

    proud ass…prove what?
    and what on earth in your world is a VC? viet cong? heh heh heh…i love your time graph. i’m glad that you don’t have a nasty job to keep you from over focusing on people or anything. that’s a classic.
    yes…note the times you boob.
    it’s a thinker alright.

  92. 115

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    Ghostsucker returns!!!

    7:31
    7:35

    Best case, you spent an hour and a half out of your ‘busy afternoon’ taking time away from your “acquisition contract” (snicker) posting here, after claiming (and I QUOTE “I don’t have time….”). Ooh, ooh, ooh, Ghost, you are SO busy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Har, har, har, har……………….whadda’ putz.

  93. 116

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    “proud ass…prove what?”

    Why, prove your factural assertion, of course. You stupid or what?

  94. 117

    Proud to be an Ass spews:

    “and what on earth in your world is a VC? viet cong?”

    Oh, pleez. They had more honor than you do, Ghosty.

  95. 118

    proud leftist spews:

    Goldy,
    I am a member of a class vilified by the GOP–that class they always refer to as “greedy trial lawyers.” As a member of that class, I certainly identified with John Edwards. I understand that his motives during his career were good, that he aimed at justice and bettering lives through litigation. Nonetheless, after I heard Obama’s speech following his victory in Iowa, I became a wholehearted supporter. Obama can give a speech like nobody I have heard in a helluva long time. I believe that counts. Obama does have the capacity to heal divides in this nation that have festered far too long. Like you, I have my doubts that the puppy-barbecuers on the right will ever work toward national unity, and I suspect they will do anything to undermine an Obama presidency, no matter the cost to the nation. But, as a good progressive, I still remain incapable of forgoing my ideals and hoping. Hoping that we might have a political community that shares some values, values like making this nation better. Hillary, as much as I respect her, will not bring the nation together. Her surname precludes that possibility. Obama has a chance to do so.

  96. 119

    FricknFrack spews:

    How about “Neither of the Above”?

    Ran errands today and didn’t even discover that Edwards pulled out this morning until around 8pm tonite. Then I opened the nice “Thank You” email from him. Disappointed as HELL!

    I am not signing in as an UNCOMMITTED, I just ain’t going to waste time going to caucus. Will probably write in Edwards on the primary ballot, since the Dems don’t count it anyways, just make my feelings known. Dems have been so damn busy “MAKING HISTORY” it wouldn’t surprise me if the RepubliCONs pulled off another win at the Whitehouse this Nov.

    Both Obama and Clinton seem like more run of the mill politicians, that merely have a (D) behind their names. I screamed at my TV the first time Hilary excitedly & wistfully-looking declared her candidacy! Nancy Pelosi was getting all the attention by becoming First Lady Speaker at that VERY same time, so I wasn’t surprised that Hil pounced to make her “Mark in History”.

    To hell with the fact that we need to get the neocons OUT of the Whitehouse and take the country back! Hil needs to make her mark! Obama seems to be only looking to make his mark, too. This is just a Race of the Egos. shrub gave lots of pretty speeches about “Compassionate Conservative” & look where THAT got us!

  97. 120

    FricknFrack spews:

    Don’t worry folks! I will pin a clothespin on my nose and vote for whichever Dem is left standing, won’t toss my vote away on Nader (they’re saying today Nader is considering entering the race now, too, the HACK!). Wouldn’t even consider voting Repub!!!

    Both Obama & Hill are so in up to their necks by special interests funding their campaigns. How could they EVER stand up for the American people, they’ve both already been sold to the highest bidders?

  98. 121

    spews:

    Edwards should endorse Hillary. Poor people work hard all of their lives with no relief or recognition. The new guy on the block, the young college grad who breezes in with no experience and takes the manager’s position is something I’ve faced as a working man. My sister is a single mom who has trouble paying her bills. If Edwards endorses Obama, its like he is betraying our hard work ethic.

  99. 122

    correctnotright spews:

    Richard Pope @20:
    Saw your comment on florida and how more republicans voted – could it be because the democrats got no actual delegates from florida (for skipping ahead in the primaries) and therefor the contest was meaningless?

    Everywhere else the democrats have had record turnouts – when the results were actually COUNTED!

  100. 123

    spews:

    @113
    lee…and you “corrected” me with what? your opinion? wow…that’s really something alright.how about facts?

    Again, let’s recap. In comment #45, you wrote:

    and roger, bill clinton cannot be on the supreme court [thank the gods!] as he lost his license, remember?

    You were very clearly trying to state a fact here, except that it was incorrect, as was explained to you in comment #59. Instead of taking the time to actually look up whether you were right or not, you reiterated your incorrect statement in comment #71

    proud ass….no, he cannot serve on the supreme court. good try though.

    In comment #75, I linked to the Encarta entry explaining why you’re incorrect. In comment #76, you attempted to change the parameters of what you were saying in order to cover up the fact that you were wrong. In comment #79, I pointed out that you were acting like a 5 year old and only then did you finally stop trying to defend yourself.

    Please, I’m asking you again. Find out where they took Britney Spears and follow her there. You are a complete whackjob.

  101. 124

    spews:

    lee….your childishness only surpasses your churlishness.
    why don’t you do a little more checking to see if bill clinton can be a justice? go ahead….really do it. and then be sure to get back to me so you can apologize…….

  102. 125

    spews:

    @124
    why don’t you do a little more checking to see if bill clinton can be a justice? go ahead….really do it. and then be sure to get back to me so you can apologize…….

    I already have and I already posted the proof that there are no formal qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. If you have proof that Encarta is incorrect (and Wikipedia, and all of the other sites saying the same thing), then please post it.

  103. 126

    spews:

    lee…you are using wikipedia as your source? are you for real? you realize of course that wiki is made up [quite literally] of “things” that just any old jackass can post there, right?
    oh wait…i guess that’s why you love it so…the any old jackass part.
    clinton could not sit on the us supreme court for many reasons. the encarta is not incorrect ,just outdated and perhaps a bit incomplete. i called my uncle who was chief justice here in california and he said the same thing i did to you. no way. period.those rules are “guidelines” for competency. period. can you imagine the hearings?
    at least you are being honest. honestly stupid. thank you for admitting to all that with “the democrats controlling everything” bill would have a shot. it’s nice to know that there is one nutty liberal that will admit that the dems make up their own rules for their own peeps.
    i am really looking forward to november. i guess you are all so shrill lately because it is hard to watch your “party” devolving right before your eyes…….

  104. 127

    spews:

    @126
    Again, no links. I’ve already explained to you why you’re wrong. If your “Chief Justice uncle” is right, please have him send you a link that you can post right here. Otherwise, you are clearly full of shit, as always.

  105. 128

    spews:

    @126
    Also, if the Wikipedia page is wrong, fix it. That’s what it’s there for. It’s set up so that people can make sure that accurate information is posted. If it’s wrong, correct it.

  106. 129

    spews:

    lee,dearest, i have much more important things to waste my time on than a losing bet like trying to “fix” wikipedia. that would be a lot like trying to get the moveon.commies to learn how to speak without screaming. it just isn’t going to happen. besides, why on earth would i want to “fix” the place where every silly far leftie gets his misinformation from? that would take all the fun out of watching fools like you QUOTE it as fact for god’s sake!
    and the best part? do don’t even realize how transparent you are when you do it!
    fix it?? are you mad? it’s way too much fun this way.
    oh sure lee, i’ll have my uncle drop everything and email you himself right away………get real. he and i already had a big laugh at your expense….what’s in it for me now?
    i don’t need to prove anything to you, you are a fool tilting at windmills and this november we will have another republican in the white house that you can scream about.
    BUT, you’ll always have france……..

  107. 130

    spews:

    @129
    Wow, what a gigantic wimpout. I’m impressed. Most people would’ve just stopped commenting, but you actually took the time to leave a comment saying that you were too chickenshit to try to defend yourself.

    Bravo!

  108. 131

    spews:

    lee….i will always take the time to correct you when you are delusional. i mean, someone has to do it…it happens so often.
    just because you keep saying something untrue over and over again lee, does NOT make it true.someday you may even figure that out…until then, i’ll always be here to straighten you out.
    on another note……i wanted to ask you which presidential contender was most likely to be amenable to legalizing drugs…..what do you think?
    i am very curious as to what you think about this…if you can get off that tack you are sitting on, that is……..

  109. 132

    spews:

    @131
    I think there’s something wrong with your comment. I still don’t see anything explaining why you’re not wrong.

    on another note……i wanted to ask you which presidential contender was most likely to be amenable to legalizing drugs…..what do you think?

    I’d say Obama, and that’s based upon what several people who’ve had private conversations with him have concluded. His campaign is struggling not to do something that they see as politically unwise.

  110. 133

    spews:

    lee….i don’t think obama will be the nominee though, do you?
    “His campaign is struggling not to do something that they see as politically unwise.”

    good point. you mean unwise because it’s pretty hard for a guy to say that he made a huge mistake using and selling drugs and then go to the american people and say “let’s legalize drugs”?
    sadly, i think clinton will be the nominee. she hasn’t even gotten really nasty yet….but she will…and then obama [who i do like] is going down in flames because of his drug “use”.
    she will beat the dead horse on that one. like she and bill can talk…….
    and i didn’t say i was wrong because i’m not.

  111. 134

    spews:

    @133
    lee….i don’t think obama will be the nominee though, do you?

    We’ll know on Tuesday probably.

    you mean unwise because it’s pretty hard for a guy to say that he made a huge mistake using and selling drugs and then go to the american people and say “let’s legalize drugs”?

    Politically, yes, it is.

    sadly, i think clinton will be the nominee. she hasn’t even gotten really nasty yet….but she will…and then obama [who i do like] is going down in flames because of his drug “use”.

    And that’s actually one of the reasons why this country is in such a sorry state of affairs. We’re largely unable to put aside our fears in order to deal with things rationally.

    and i didn’t say i was wrong because i’m not.

    Well, I’m still waiting to hear what your uncle thinks.

  112. 135

    spews:

    lee, i already told you what my uncle thinks. hey, wait a sec, didn’t you think he didn’t exist???
    he said there is no way that bill would ever sit on the the supreme court. he said ,and i am quoting now “that bill clinton isn’t qualified to sit on a kangaroo court”
    is that good enough for you?

    about obama….yes, i think it is very sad that people are not willing to hear the truth and accept it. he did drugs when he was a teenager….so what? the fact that he admitted that he is human is far better than the old “but i didn’t inhale” crap we got from bill clinton, don’t you think?
    but, telling the truth in today’s america isn’t exactly popular is it? remember the recent election in michigan when mccain told the audience the truth?these old manufacturing jobs are never coming back. the world is different and the new jobs would be more green in nature and people needed to get ready for that. obviously i am grossly paraphrasing. but what happened? romney lied to people saying “i will bring these jobs back” and he won. oh please, as president how exactly is he going to bring these jobs back? he’s not, that’s how. but sadly, we have become a nation of i want to hear what i want to hear.not what i NEED to hear.
    so…whoever is the best liar gets elected and then you will hear the same people that voted for the guy say “what happened? he said blah blah blah…..”
    and they are actually surprised.
    that’s what worries me…they are actually surprised. they are the same people that will say “oh a [insert any party here] would NEVER do that”
    bullshit! they are politicians, it’s a species and you have to hunt till you find the one that is the most truthful.

  113. 136

    spews:

    and ,lee, “We’re largely unable to put aside our fears in order to deal with things rationally.” [i agree]

    how are people,for instance the average citizen, that doesn’t spend hours each week going through speeches and voting records, not going to be scared all the time [of the truth] when all politicians do is try and scare people anymore? they have become more like fire and brimstone churches than politicians.and isn’t that the very same thing churches do to control people? they use fear. oldest trick in the book. “if you don’t do this the world will end. vote for me because so and so did this and that…..oh, and if you don’t the world will come to an end”
    and the tattling. you know…no one has ever wanted to ‘rent’ several small children for that cross country road trip for a reason…..no one wants to listen to tattling bickerers, do they? and yet…watch the TV ads for the politicians. i don’t want to hear someone tattle on someone else. i want to know what THEY are going to do to fix things, what their plan is and how it will be implemented. and jesus…it should contain a little more substance to it than “hope” and “change”. Y-A-W-N.
    god…what dumb slogans!

  114. 137

    spews:

    @135
    lee, i already told you what my uncle thinks. hey, wait a sec, didn’t you think he didn’t exist???
    he said there is no way that bill would ever sit on the the supreme court. he said ,and i am quoting now “that bill clinton isn’t qualified to sit on a kangaroo court”
    is that good enough for you?

    No, it’s not, because it wasn’t the question. The question was whether or not he could serve and there’s nothing in the law that says he can’t. I’ve already sent your uncle an email asking for a clarification on this point and haven’t heard back yet. I know full well he’ll never be on the Supreme Court, but that was never the question here.

    about obama….yes, i think it is very sad that people are not willing to hear the truth and accept it. he did drugs when he was a teenager….so what? the fact that he admitted that he is human is far better than the old “but i didn’t inhale” crap we got from bill clinton, don’t you think?

    I agree, and considerably better than what Bush has admitted to.

    but, telling the truth in today’s america isn’t exactly popular is it?

    No, and thanks again for demonstrating that for us.

    remember the recent election in michigan when mccain told the audience the truth?these old manufacturing jobs are never coming back. the world is different and the new jobs would be more green in nature and people needed to get ready for that. obviously i am grossly paraphrasing. but what happened? romney lied to people saying “i will bring these jobs back” and he won. oh please, as president how exactly is he going to bring these jobs back? he’s not, that’s how. but sadly, we have become a nation of i want to hear what i want to hear.not what i NEED to hear.

    Exactly! And in that same vein, you need to be told that the drug war will succeed and is necessary because your fear of drugs is too great to handle the truth that drug prohibitions don’t work, even for harder drugs like amphetamines and cocaine. Are you seeing the pattern now? Are you starting to get the picture of how your efforts to accuse others of being so willing to avoid the truth when the truth hurts simply an exercise in projection on your part?

    so…whoever is the best liar gets elected and then you will hear the same people that voted for the guy say “what happened? he said blah blah blah…..”
    and they are actually surprised.

    And if Obama wins, and goes back on a campaign promise, I won’t even be the least bit surprised.

    how are people,for instance the average citizen, that doesn’t spend hours each week going through speeches and voting records, not going to be scared all the time [of the truth] when all politicians do is try and scare people anymore?

    When idiots like you stop defending them! Look at what you’re doing with the drug war! The drug war involves scaring people about the dangers of illegal drugs. This works because people like you buy into it and promote the scare tactics. Learn to be rational. Learn to put aside fear and deal with reality as it is.

    they have become more like fire and brimstone churches than politicians.and isn’t that the very same thing churches do to control people?

    Yes it is. And it’s a massive problem that we need to get past as a society. Because the worst-case scenario is that you end up with governments that are built around loyalty rather than competence.

    they use fear. oldest trick in the book. “if you don’t do this the world will end. vote for me because so and so did this and that…..oh, and if you don’t the world will come to an end”

    Yes, and this is how both the drug war and the war on terror work. This is why we’re stuck in Iraq spending nearly $1 trillion making the Middle East even more unstable, more dangerous, and more hostile to our interests than it was on September 11, 2001 – because the Republicans have been exploiting our fears in order to keep from being held accountable for their mistakes. When you can stand up and say that then I’ll start taking you seriously when you say you want to fight against this culture of fear. But from the way you continually attack my efforts to remove us from the culture of fear when it comes to drugs, I know full-well that you’re nothing more than a hypocrite.