Anyone else get this email newsletter of political gossip, put out by the folks at US News? I was intrigued by a couple of their tidbits:
Whispers learns that Kerry is not just testing the waters: He’s running . “His family wants him to run again,” says one pal. Proof he’s in: Kerry has added names to his E-mail list of 3 million, kept johnkerry.com alive and kicking, raised boatloads of cash for friendly Democrats, and moved to seize control of hot-button issues like kids’ healthcare, the environment, and support for military families. The Kerry clan is also pushing the Clinton electability issue. “Donors and organized labor love Bill Clinton, ” says one Kerry friend. “But they’re telling everyone they’re terrified that she’d get stomped.”
Friends of Hillary, meanwhile, are touting her front-runner status and joining in the chorus of Democrats who think Kerry should crawl under a rock and go away. “He had his chance,” mutters a Clinton ally. “It’s over.”
Personally, I think they are both right: Kerry’s had his chance, and Hillary’s unelectable. Meanwhile, Dean will hopefully stand by his pledge not to run, now that he’s DNC chair. Go Edwards!
And then this item is just plain bizarre:
“It’s a sign of respect and affection–nothing sexual whatsoever.”
Nail al-Jubeir, Saudi spokesman, on the handholding between Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, Texas.
Okayyyy…I think that was kind of belabouring the obvious, don’t you? I mean, sure, those of us who hate Bush (and probably aren’t fond of the Saudis either) had some juvenile fun with those photos. But did the Saudis actually think they had to clarify this? Doesn’t this guy al-Jubeir get that you make the whole thing way more nauseating when you refer to Bush and Abdullah with the word “sexual” in the sentence, even if you add a negative? And aren’t those guys supposed to be all ultra-prudish? Can they even say the word “sexual” in public? LOL
Please god, no. I wish he were president, but no more running for president. Edwards might be okay. He might have done better against W in 2004.
I waffled on whom to support, and donated to multiple candidates, but by January of last year, as Iowa approached, I had settled on Edwards as the best choice. I donated to his campaign even after Kerry took Iowa and NH, and when the Missouri primary came, I voted Edwards (though his chances were fading at that point). I think aside from his “upbeat/optimistic” quality, he’s got a great lawyer’s ability to stick the knife in without seeming to be sticking the knife in (he was fantastic in the debate against Cheney, I thought), and do it all with a smile.
I’m sure hardcore conservatives think he comes across as slick and calculating, that his “sunny” small-town-boy demeanour is all for show. And they might be right (sometimes I even think he’s a little bit full of shit), but their votes aren’t up for grabs anyway. What’s important is that I don’t think the average swing voter perceives him that way–and if conservatives stomp up and down and whine that he’s a fraud or a showman or whatever, they’ll just look peevish and small.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Bush and the Crown Prince are obviously lovers, Slacker, wake up.
A big “NO WAY Kerry” from me.
As for Edwards I think he’s just too interested in being Pres. Reminds me just a little bit too much of Tony Blair (power hungry). I think we will be seeing a whole new ballgame in ’08 with new players.
Absolutely agree! It’s a new ballgame and there are to many players on the field to be thinking about 08.
The most pressing issue is how to take the House and/or the Senate back in 06 and derail this train wreck of an administration.
If we don’t get a “fix in 06” it’s going to be “to late in 08”.
Nuff said.
I don’t like that argument. It’s a good rhyme, but it sets us up for throwing up our hands in despair if we don’t make it in ’06. If we can make it six years, why wouldn’t we be able to make it two more? And the thing is, I think our chances are better in ’08 when we at least can run the presidential race without having to face an incumbent.
SI:
What I’m attempting to say, perhaps to briefly, is that we already know that W isn’t a candidate in 08, the issue is that he and Rove and the cabal running the show are fully aware of that and are going to push thru their agenda at all costs during the remainder of their term. In case you haven’t noticed, said agenda does not bode well for the poor, what’s left of the middle class, or the environment, not to mention our increasingly isolated position in the world and the very real possibility of further misadventures in the middle east.
I am simply suggesting that our collective energies would be better spent attempting to achieve, for lack of a better term: a “balance” within the government that currently does not exist.
By concentrating on the mid-term elections there exists a possibility, however slim, of gaining control of at least one of the legislative branches and subsequently being able to slow down or stop the abuses currently being enacted / proposed.
So, clever rhymes aside, although I was rather pleased w/ that one, I believe that all the talk about who is or is not a viable candidate for pres. on 08 is premature and detracts from the mission at hand.
I for one am not going to “throw up my hands in despair” or stop working for the changes that I believe are needed, if we fall short. It just makes more sense to concentrate on realizing some of those changes near term in lieu of “making it” through 8 years as opposed to 6. I’ve had enough already.
Who are these non-power hungry presidential candidates you imply are out there somewhere? Doesn’t that kinda go with the territory?