Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts

July 29, 2008

Barack's Ten Commandments


No Messiah is complete without a list of instructions thou shall and shall not do. So here's my version of Obama's Ten Commandments.

1. I am the Messiah, thou shall never doubt my motives or ask tough questions at any time. (As Katie found out 8:30 into this interview last week)
2. Thou shall not question my campaign when we create our own graven image - uh Presidential Seal
3. Thou shall not take my middle name in vein, or mention it at any time
4. Remember to keep Holy the Sabbath - no matter what your insane preacher is saying from the pulpit
5. Honor thy Father and Mother - but if Grandma is a typical white person, feel free to throw her under the bus
6. Thou shall not kill, even if the terrorist is square in your sights
7. Thou shall committ adultery - do you hear me John Edwards?
8. Thou shall not steal - unless you are stealing Bono's inspirational words from a rock concert. (You may be saying huh? Here's what I am refering to)
9. Thou shall not bear false witness (flip-flop) on abortion, guns, or Iraq
10. Thou shall not covet - or in others words, assume you have won the Presidency already.

March 26, 2008

Convention-Al Wisdom?


What if neither Hillary nor Barack secure enough delegates before the convention?

Will a settlement be reached? Will pretty-boy John Edwards, and his 61 delegates broker a deal? Will either side accept not being on top of the ticket?

According to at least one super-democrat-delegate, the possibility of another solution exists. If the donkeys go down this road, then the chaos we see now is only the beginning.

The former next President of the United States (and global warming propagandist/profiteer) Al Gore, is being considered one potential solution to the donkey's conventional mess.

Can you imagine the outcry from democrat ranks with this solution? Can you imagine the GOP bumper sticker possibilities?

Selected, not elected - Gore 2008
Democrats - knowing what's best for you since before you were born
Choice, reserved for super-delegates
Gore, the choice of no generation
Gore, the other white meat
Gore, just a typical white guy

January 8, 2008

Post New Hampshire


Ok, so the comeback kids won New Hampshire, and the point is? The first primary has been known to give life to otherwise floundering campaigns, but can the Live Free or Die State really have a lasting impact on the remaining primary battles? The primary did make this race an open one, on both sides. Clearly, the Dems are down to two candidates; the GOP though still has at least four viable options.

If Clinton doesn't get the democrat nod. The potential for a Hillary-less general election fight changes the entire landscape. The main motive for my early rooting interest in Rudy was his contrast against Clinton. The comparison between Obama and Rudy isn't as appealing.

Against Obama, if Barack is indeed the new front-runner for the donkeys, Rudy looks old and frail. Against the charm and charisma of Obama you need a confident and informed candidate. And with that potential battle on the horizon, Romney is starting to look like quite an interesting alternative to the shaky Giuliani.

Romney put the issue of immigration (top conservative issue after the war) out of the park on Fox's Sunday night debate; amnesty in any form is not acceptable. Second, Mitt was on target regarding changing the culture in Washington (another conservative sticking point). At last, Romney appears to be finding his voice regarding the difference between Pennsylvania avenue and the rest of us.

McCain seemed more measured Sunday night than in recent debates. Trying to appear stoic and carefully avoiding anything which would jeopardize his recent rise in the polls. However, the fake smile always reminds me of campaign finance reform, and because of that image, he could walk on water and I'd never notice. Independents however, still like the "maverick" and clearly turned to him rather than getting sucked into the Obama wave.

I never bought into the Huckster's rise, having seen many Iowa winners fade quickly once the more-liberal New Hampshire voters had their say. Once I peeled back some layers on Huckabee, it wasn't hard to find some major flaws in his campaign. Primarily, the evangelical wing of the conservative movement that Mike represents, is too single-issue-focused for my taste.

I have to admit, I underestimated Mitt's talent and focus. His broad business knowledge, his record in turning around the Olympics, and his ability to think on his feet, maintaining big-picture thinking during the heat of a debate (something Bush never possessed), all are making me reconsider his candidacy. His reference to China as a competitor to the US, shows he's tuned into the global marketplace (whether we like globalization or not) and its changing influence in our economy.

For now I remain undecided, not impressed by McCain's New Hampshire win. Hillary seems to have new life, though the crying moment seemed pathetic and weak. Romney needs to win one of the next few primaries, before Rudy's game plan starts to take hold. Obama hasn't fully captured the moment, yet. His inability to capture the independents tonight could be a sign he doesn't have broad appeal. (note: Why didn't NH independents turn his way? I thought they were moderate libs...hmmm) Huck, Fred and Edwards are afterthoughts.

The picture is starting to take shape, yet remains amazingly vague.

November 17, 2007

Fight Like a Man Hillary

The foundation for electing a woman president, according to the left, is based on the assumption that women are capable of doing and handling anything men can. So why is Hillary (Mrs. Bill Clinton) playing the sex card when it comes to the debates?

Clinton Inc. leveled "mudslinging" charges against Tim Russert and the other wanna-be presidential candidates. What caused the boys to be targeted for such slander? It seems that the girl didn't like the fact that Russert dared to challenge Hillary on the flip-flop she uttered in last week's debate in Philadelphia. The issue revolves around Hillary's answer to a seemingly simple question.

New York's (democrat) governor, Elliot Spitzer, was pushing for ILLEGAL ALIENS to be granted driver's licenses. The question was simple, "do you support the plan?" A simple yes or no answer was called for. But somehow, America's "smartest woman" found herself saying two different things in a span of 2 minutes.

John pretty-boy Edwards at least had the jewels to point it out and Russert followed-up by pressing Clinton on her answers. The result; the girl whined about the vicious slinging of mud and compared the boys pointing out her inconsistent remarks to attacks "right out of the Republican playbook".

Mrs. Bill Clinton, if you can't be held accountable for things you say, without whining like a little girl, what makes you think the American voters should trust you are tough enough (a.k.a. the intestinal fortitude) to be President??