Can't say I think it will happen, but it would be great if it did. (The other way round would be quite interesting too, although it's a little harder to see Edwards agreeing to it.)
Forget Obama the Oreo.
That’s been my choice. Although Kucinich or probably Dodd would be a fine substitute for either, but not as electable. It was a couple of weeks ago that it occurred to me that if they could agree to commit/release their delegates to the each other based on who wins the two way race between them, then each could concentrate on separate states and it would be closer to an instant run-off.
Notice no one mentions Gore anymore. Guess they finally believe him.
The trouble with the first comment above isn’t just that it’s offensive, it’s that it’s also stupid: Kucinich adds nothing of value to a national ticket. He isn’t a serious candidate, and he isn’t even having an ideological impact on the race. Strangely, the person doing that, if anyone, is Chris Dodd.
That Obama has an appeal that includes a lot of white folks is part of — but only a part of — his very considerable charm. He also has good political instincts — got Iraq right before the other major candidates — and some good policy proposals. His health care plan may not be quite as good as Edwards’s but it is much better than what we have.
Is the ‘Buffalo’ a Republican troll? And why does s/he link to a commercial site?
My own analysis from afar is that Edwards is the candidate most feared by the Republicans.This is based on his color and gender, frankly, as well as the fact that he is a Southerner, not to mention his support for populist policies, which are always a no-no.
This, I believe, is why he is attacked for his ‘prettiness’ and treated so poorly by the media.
We all know Hillary has substantial negatives, and some of those negatives come from people on the left. She is not a big departure from the GOP, at least what the GOP appeared to be prior to W (I would argue that W is very much precisely what the GOP has always been; he just isn’t able to hide it as well as others have). On foreign policy, especially, she holds many of the same notions as the GOP. So I am not excited about the possibility of her winning the nomination.
Now, assuming Diebold is sidelined this election (a big if) , any Democrat should win, given the national mood because all of the abject failures and violations of the nation’s trust of and by the current administration. But Obama and especially Hillary will bring out a lot of passionate opposition. Obama because he is black and Hillary because she is a Clinton.
As to this troll, Michael I would dearly love to review your logs. I suspect you have basically one troll who changes his name but not his style. I mark this one as ‘Go Democrats’ from about 6-9 months ago.
Edwards was always my candidate going back to 2004. Obama is a terrible disappointment and sounds to me like a Rockefeller Republican; Richardson will make a better VP. Hillary Clinton scares the hell out of me. In 2004 when every Democrat ran to Kerry, it was clear to me that the guy is an awful candidate. She seems the same; she is rigid, hated and listens to Peter Fenn advise who dies to be smack in the middle.
This is the real “Go Democrats.” You have misidentified me and must feel really silly. You referred to Michael, but Michael Froomkin is the actual owner/creator of discourse.net. Please do not ever confuse me with him again, we are quite distinct. Michael gets his source of mis-information from watching CNN and Fox News, whereas I myself do my own research to formulate coherent and logical arguments. It is the difference between night and day! (Uh oh, Michael might delete might posting for saying that!)
LACJ I have read your postings before and your ignorant postings do make for a great laugh at the office. Please keep them coming!
And in some wierd twist of fate, if Hillary or Obama should win the nomination, Mr. Go Democrats himself may actually donate to and vote Republican for the first time in 6 elections!!!
I do indeed feel really, really silly. How foolish of me for feeding the trolls!!
May I call you Go? Would that amuse all of you in ‘the office’? Shades of the last troll I engaged here; I believe that was the individual with a purported email address at aba.com, who also mentioned his ‘office’, which would have been a bank or other financial institution, based on the email address. I do believe you to be one and the same. Google can be your friend, Go, you might want to use it on occasion.
Go, you are a quality troll, and I mean that sincerely. Mis-spellings are minimal, although your reading comprehension could use some work. I most certainly did not mistake you for our kind host, and am well aware of the many distinctions between the two of you.
I have no idea what you think my reference to ‘your logs’ would be if I had been referring to you. I have no interest in your logs, Go, sorry about that. In light of the many homosexual scandals involving Republicans recently I would like to be very clear about this point.
Staking out a far-left position with a hint of offensiveness is what you do, and you do it quite well. On second thought, no, you don’t; I was simply engaging in a bit of friendly snark.
Of course, sometimes you use a different name and revert to typical far-right blather, which is equally amusing.
Interesting that you express a dislike for both Hillary and Obama, which of course conflicts most obviously with your handle, and indeed seems somewhat internally conflicted. Consistency, Go, consistency!
More power to you, Go, my friend. Keep up the subversive work!! You are doing a great service to your country.
Participants in this thread are kindly requested to review the comments policy for this blog.
That last posting was so awful, I had to print it out and post it all over the office! You will be the laughing stock all week!!
And I do not work for a bank of financial institution, actually I am an attorney in south Florida. Someone of your intellectual limitness could only be from Sri Lanka or Guam! Am I correct?
You ranted something about me referring to “my logs.” No where in any of my postings have I ever used the term “logs.” Then you muttered something about homosexual Republican scandals (which I never addressed either in my posting), and said you wanted to be “very clear on this point.” But then you failed to continue any further discussion about homosexual Republican scandals? Why are gay conversatives on your mind anyway?
Then you accused me of taking on far left positions on things (i.e. a left wing blogger), followed by a complete retraction of your own comment!!! To add insult to injury, you then accused me of being a right wing blogger! WTF?!?!?!?!?
And then to top off your entire ridiculous rant you advised me to “keep up the subversive work”! I don’t know if you failed high school English or something but the following definition of subversive on http://www.dictionary.com is:
sub·ver·sion·ar·y /səbˈvɜrʒəˌnɛri, -ʃə-/ [suhb-vur-zhuh-ner-ee, -shuh-]: Tending to subvert or advocating subversion, esp. in an attempt to overthrow or cause the destruction of an established or legally constituted government.
I assure you that my comment that Hillary and Obama are not good candidates for President have nothing to do with overthrowing the government. What is the matter with you?!?!?!
What would explain your completely incoherent response that is not founded in law nor fact? Paranoid Schizophrenia? Bipolar Disorder?
Your entire email either demonstrates your abusive addiction to drugs, or you just lack fundamental argumentative skills sufficient for a healthy debate!
Please God do not respond any further, every time I am subjected to your comments, my IQ drops 5%!
And just to stay on topic with this post and to clarify why Hillary and Obama are not good candidates, let me be clear that it has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman, and Obama being black. Rather Hillary is a vote fetcher who will change opinions at the drop of a hat if she believes it will pick up more votes. Obama is too much of a “newbie” otherwise called an “unexperienced candidate” to be given the job of President. Edwards is not a great candidate because he has flip flopped on major issues. The best Democratic candidate would be someone who was never in the Senate, as the Senate has just been an outright detriment for the Democrats.
That last posting was so awful, I had to print it out and post it all over the office! You will be the laughing stock all week!! Seriously, you had me on the floor rolling I was laughing so hard!
And then to top off your entire ridiculous nonsense you advised me to “keep up the subversive work”! I don’t know if you failed high school English or something but the following definition of subversive on http://www.dictionary.com is:
sub·ver·sion·ar·y [suhb-vur-zhuh-ner-ee, -shuh-]: Tending to subvert or advocating subversion, esp. in an attempt to overthrow or cause the destruction of an established or legally constituted government.
Your entire email either demonstrates your abusive addiction to drugs or your lack of fundamental argumentative skills sufficient for a healthy debate!
I do apologize to the entire audience for posting three times, for some reason the website kept coming back “unresponsive” but apparently it was posting anyway.
There are these big red words just above the “Post” button that say:
Please only hit the ‘Post’ button ONCE. Something IS happening. Really. Trust me.
Then, on the “Post” button itself, it says,
Post (only click ONCE please – even if it seems unresponsive)
Apparently this was not clear enough?
Sorry Michael, I let the snark get the best of me. I assume the violation was for not being even arguably on-topic. I did try to be as courteous as possible, and indeed do not harbor any bad feelings towards my worthy adversary. I do enjoy reading a new, semi-comprehensible, post.
It seems said adversary got a little excited there. I have had that happen too, Go, and have made the same mistake you did. The trick, I have found, is to wait for say 20 minutes and then refresh the page to see if your comment appears. Just a word to the wise, no snark included.
In light of our host’s comments I will decline to continue this ‘discussion’. Apologies for any troubles caused.
I always enjoy a nice concession.
Yes, Go, my ‘argumentative’ skills are no match for your rapier wit. Plus the paranoia is coming back…
First you discuss “logs.” Then you discuss “homosexual Republicans.” Then you discuss Rapier which on http://www.dictionary.com is a “two headed sword.” So lets get this straight… so far on this thread regarding Edwards/Obama, you discussed gay conservatives, logs, and swords, which has nothing to do whatsoever with an Edwards/Obama ticket. Your problems are beyond paranoia, you need a girlfriend dude.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.