maybe it's about the car he doesn't want you to buy.
Tom said...
"If Edwards would drop out I think Obama could coast to the nomination. I don't think Richardson's departure will help either side very much."
Yeah, i got a few paranoid delusions building. One is that despite appearances (him attacking her in debates and on the campaign trail) Edwards is in cohorts with the Clintons. Clearly he hasn't a chance to win, but his fiery rhetoric is enough to keep his percentage and some of the unions. While also giving democrats who don't like the "polarizing" Hillary a choice other then Obama. It may even be more calculating then that. Wouldn't it be assumed that Edward's aggressive stance towards Clinton would appeal to men (taking from Obama's strength) while creating empathy among women (adding to Clinton's strength). What Edwards would be gaining from an alliance with Clinton Co. is obviously undisclosed (at least for now) but clearly he's not losing (or accomplishing any good) anything by staying in the race.
Also, you can't tell me someone who believes that woman should not be president is going to stand up and yell "Iron my shirt!" at an HRC rally. Clearly that would not help your cause. Totally planted by Clinton Co to impassion woman voters.
Tom said...
"If Edwards would drop out I think Obama could coast to the nomination. I don't think Richardson's departure will help either side very much."
Yeah, i got a few paranoid delusions building. One is that despite appearances (him attacking her in debates and on the campaign trail) Edwards is in cohorts with the Clintons. Clearly he hasn't a chance to win, but his fiery rhetoric is enough to keep his percentage and some of the unions. While also giving democrats who don't like the "polarizing" Hillary a choice other then Obama. It may even be more calculating then that. Wouldn't it be assumed that Edward's aggressive stance towards Clinton would appeal to men (taking from Obama's strength) while creating empathy among women (adding to Clinton's strength). What Edwards would be gaining from an alliance with Clinton Co. is obviously undisclosed (at least for now) but clearly he's not losing (or accomplishing any good) anything by staying in the race.
Also, you can't tell me someone who believes that woman should not be president is going to stand up and yell "Iron my shirt!" at an HRC rally. Clearly that would not help your cause. Totally planted by Clinton Co to impassion woman voters.
I don't think he sides with the Clinton's. I think Edwards actually thought he could win. After the 2nd place finish in Iowa, he wanted a race with Obama. That meant Clinton to coming in 3rd again. It was nice because he went really negative so that Obama didn't have to, but after he finishes last in the next two states, I think he'll back out. Given that the Clinton's won't pick him as a running mate, he'd be smart to start backing or at least speaking for Obama. Hopefully by then it won't be too late.
ReplyDeleteThe real conspiracy is in the reporting. How is it that Clinton, who was ahead by more than 10 points in NH prior to Iowa is considered to be a comeback candidate? The truth is the independents voted in the Republican primary. Now she'll get most of the favorable reporting for the next couple of weeks when in truth she's lost a huge lead and no one but the most ardent Democrats have preferred her to Obama. Given Kerry and now Clinton, I convinced the Democrats are trully self-destructive.
...and i think that is how it i suppose to look. But, at this point, no one is benefiting from Edwards staying in the race more than CLinton Co.
ReplyDeletePeople do stupid lone protests in unfriendly venues all the time. I think it's quite plausible to think HRC's campaign had nothing to do with it. This hating Hillary stuff here is a bit much. I mean she agrees with Bama on like 99.999999999 percent of the issues that matter to you. I know you'd rather have her be president than anyone on the GOP side. Stop eating your own. It's starting to sound like Shawn Hannity around here. She won fair and square. So she says you need an experienced leader in case of a terorist attack. Maybe we do-I mean look what happened in 01 when an inexperienced guy was at the helm when it happened. Obama's talking about invading Pakistan to catch a guy who makes audio tapes and who probably has been dead for years since it's hard to get dialysis in a cave. They're both just big money Democrats. Either will do fine. Granted onew has fewer negatives at this point, but the year is young. Whoever wins the nomination will be a million times more capable of running the white house than Bush.
ReplyDeleteye who voted for Nader.... TWICE!
ReplyDeleteOnly once actually. And I'm not a Democrat. I think they are a party of cowards for the most part. This year's Congress being a perfect example. I'm willing to vote for a Democrat this year assuming it's worth my while, but they're too conservative for me on the whole. And I could have voted Nader 160,000 times in Virginia and not affected the outcome in 2000. I just thought the trashing hillary stuff doesn't really go along with the politics of hope.
ReplyDelete