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 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

0 0 votes
Article Rating