PeterDavid.net

Wait, do people still listen to what the goob has to say??

The Bush administration has been very steady about Clinton being the candidate to beat. Remember Rove's exit interviews? He kept going on and on about Clinton, but when asked about Obama he went quiet.

The White House WANTS Clinton to be the Democratic candidate, and so they mention only her so the Democrats think they're afraid of her and give her the nomination. The White House also knows that she's the single candidate most likely to unite Republican voters against the Democratic party, and she's got plenty of stuff in her background they can point out during the campaign, hardly any smearing necessary.

The White House does not want Obama to be the candidate, or Edwards. Without a boogeyman -- sorry, boogeywoman -- to scare voters with, they might actually have to run on their party's merits.

I don't really see the White House having any fear of Obama. I think he's a good man, but I don't think he's electable.

"The White House does not want Obama to be the candidate, or Edwards."

Actually, I think they'd be most afraid of Edwards. I think there's plenty of Americans who, when it comes down to it, won't want to put a woman or a black man in the Oval Office. Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply bcause he's a white male.

PAD

I don't really see the White House having any fear of Obama. I think he's a good man, but I don't think he's electable.
**********
SER: I think he's more electable than Sen. Clinton, who has way too much baggage and nowhere near the experience she claims. In fact, her experience is more bad experience than anything else -- I just finished reading Bernstein's book about her and it's amazing how many of the Clinton administration's biggest fumbles can be traced to her (and Bernstein was hardly inclined to do a hatchet job).

More critically is that she's never really had to run a real campaign -- this is arguably her first. Lazio was a sacrificial lamb. And her current campaign just isn't that impressive. I respect her but I'm not inspired by her.

I think, big picture, Obama or Edwards can beat Giuliani (the most likely candidate unless he really stumbles and then it's possibly Romney). Any claim of "experience" will fall flat against "Mr. 9/11." He also doesn't even have the baggage of voting for the Iraq War. And I think Giuliani is dangerously appealing to conservative Democrats whereas Sen. Clinton has zero appeal to Republicans (even moderate conservatives who might have voted for her husband).

Edwards, the charismatic white male, has more crossover appeal. Obama, though black, is charismatic and inspirational enough to connect to voters.

Anyway, intuitively, I just don't see how Sen. Clinton can win. That's why I'm hoping she'll stumble at the gate. And frankly, something sort of bugs me about our nation being run by basically 2 families (and very incestuous cabinets) for a quarter century.

Well, Giuliani's vulnerabilities are being paraded by the press, and 9-11 commission chair Tom Kean just endorsed McCain on security. If Bush thinks McCain is the republican candidate who can keep his secrets best, we may soon see McCain more actively positioning himself as the anti-Hillary. Portraying Hillary as the likely democratic pick helps him while Giuliani is vulnerable.

Actually, I think they'd be most afraid of Edwards. I think there's plenty of Americans who, when it comes down to it, won't want to put a woman or a black man in the Oval Office. Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply bcause he's a white male.

Based on his pledge to campaign in the general election on matching funds I wouldn't have agreed with this last week, but now I'm hearing he may be disqualified from doing so, so Edwards is a lot stronger than he's being portrayed. He's got the same stand on healthcare as Hillary and a strong campaign, but none of the tired James-Carville-brand of politicking.

The end to this dynastic rule is JUST fine with me. I'll not vote for a Clinton or a Bush.

If Hillary allegedly has "most experience" of all the Democratic presidential candidates, that doesn't say much for the Democratic slate, as a whole.

Frankly, as a non-aligned voter, I'm not looking forward to any of my choices from either party for 2008.

I think the biggest question, not only for the presidency, but for Congress as well, is where have all the leaders gone?

Don't apply too much kremlinology to this.

I remember the article in which Bush's statement about Hillary originated. It was about how the administration is preparing for the inevitable transition to whoever will become President next January.

Bush was making no attempt to make an endorsement or poison any candidate's chances. He was trying to appear "above the fray". This is a luxury he has because no one in his administration is seeking the nomination.

Ironic that with all the talk about "Dynastic Politics" there is no heir apparent on the GOP ticket. Though its a common assumption that Jeb Bush might take a shot at it in the future. Maybe a 2008 run for Jeb was the presumption behind making Cheney the VP candidate back in 2000.

There are compelling arguments for every candidate in this election as to why they are unelectable... and yet, one of them will be elected.

Ironic that with all the talk about "Dynastic Politics" there is no heir apparent on the GOP ticket. Though its a common assumption that Jeb Bush might take a shot at it in the future.

I think it is safe to say that after the past 7+ years, there is no way in Hades that Jeb (or any other Bush for the forseeable future) will be elected to the White House. His campaign slogan would pretty much have to be "Elect Jeb -- He's the Competent One", and that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I always felt that Edwards was the best Democrat candidate even back in 2004. He was the one that I, as a Republican, was most afraid of on the ballot.

The electoral college has a very thin margin of error for the GOP. A candidate must sweep the entire South to win since they have no chance in the Big Blue states (CA, IL, NY). Edwards could derail that GOP winning strategy. Democrats have nothing to fear from Giuliani or Romney since they won't win any Big Blue states and could endanger holding the South.

For the Republicans, Obama would be a godsend. I still think Hillary is very electable and quite honestly I'm not afraid of her. The Clintons always do what's popular in the long run. Bill was a status-quo keeper for the last 5 years of his presidency.

Sasha wrote: "Elect Jeb -- He's the Competent One"

LOL! I can almost picture it. Amazing how something can be so humorous and terrifying at the same time.

PAD wrote: Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply because he's a white male.

Agreed. I'd be surprised if the elected candidate is a minority or woman unless there was no other option. Personally, all I ask is that the person be able to handle the job competently and morally.

While I think of it, I think there was an article regarding Mrs. Obama saying how America would be viewed differently by the world if we elected an African-American president - I'll post the link if I can ever find it again. She has a point, but wouldn't we also be viewed differently if we finally voted in a woman, a Hispanic, or an Asian-American?

For the Republicans, Obama would be a godsend.

Why do you think that? I'd imagine that Hillary would be much more of a godsend -- if there's any figure that can unite the splintered factions of the GOP, it's her.

>wouldn't we also be viewed differently if we finally voted in a woman...?

Not necessarily. Remember the iron-fisted Margaret Thatcher?

http://www.draftgore.com/

Amazing how little confidence some people have in the existing electoral pool.

Bush was making no attempt to make an endorsement or poison any candidate's chances. He was trying to appear "above the fray". This is a luxury he has because no one in his administration is seeking the nomination.

Ironic that with all the talk about "Dynastic Politics" there is no heir apparent on the GOP ticket.

Bush is so unpopular, it's pretty obvious that any republican receiving his endorsement would have to cry foul.

And Bush doesn't have the luxury of being indifferent -- his successor will have access to all the shit he's trying to keep buried. McCain is his obvious best-option to protect his secrets. The surge is, after all, known as the McCain Doctrine. Bush simply knows publicly supporting McCain will only handicap his campaign.

Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply bcause he's a white male.

I would disagree. He didn't impress us much here in NC as a Senator (though he WAS smart enough to leave after one term) and he has not terribly impressed the Democratic primary voters, if the polls are to be believed. If Clinton and Obama destroy each other he might slip in but I doubt that will happen--and if it does it won't leave him with a terribly great groundswell of support. Better to win than to merely be left standing when the others lose.

It's still Hillary's to lose and she has the money to survive any setbacks in the early primaries, which Edwards and, to a lesser degree, Obama, can't say. I'd still put my bets on her, though she showed a surprising vulnerability when she had a minor stumble 2 debates ago. I wouldn't have expected them to pull the gender card so quickly and with so little cause. It will be much less effective when she has to do it again, against some real attacks.

And I think Giuliani is dangerously appealing to conservative Democrats whereas Sen. Clinton has zero appeal to Republicans (even moderate conservatives who might have voted for her husband).

I disagree. I think you might be surprised at how many Republicans have looked at her in the debates and seen her as the grownup among amateurs. Her refusal to pander too much to the Dailykos crowd will help her there (and the kossacks will vote for her anyway. Where they gonna go? In contrast, some of the hardcore religious right might be willing to stay home rather than vote for Giuliani or Romney.)

Anyway, intuitively, I just don't see how Sen. Clinton can win.

I don't see too many states that have taken a strong tilt to the republicans lately and a few that seem to have definitely turned Democratic. She only has to pick up a few states over Kerry. And I don't think she'll make his mistake of not spending millions of dollars on hand in those last few days.

At worst she starts out at a very close tie. What happens next depends on discipline and resources and some luck. Can't control luck but you have to give her an edge on the first two.

The funny thing is, everything can change once the primaries start.

Going into the 2004 primaries, Howard Dean was the Democratic front runner. Then he lost the first primary and everybody started saying "What a twist!" The big story, repeated not just by the pundits but by every news source, was that the guy who everyone thought would be the Democratic candidate was now in second place.

So when he gave that infamous yell, nobody said he was trying to fire up his people. Nobody said he was crazy determined and everyone should get out of his way. At that point the story was that he was unexpectedly in second place, so everyone looked at the yell and said he was desperate, which made things worse.

That's the funny thing about primaries. People aren't voting for who they think would make the better President, they're voting for who they think can beat the other party on election day. That's why only the first few primaries matter. If someone can make those first few states think he can defeat the other side, then all the other states line up to back the winner.

Interesting. Two other comments since I submitted have posted, which would indicate that you've at least seen mine. How is pointing out there are those who have little faith in the current democratic electoral pool and are trying to bring Gore in somehow malicious?

Or are you simply censoring those whose opinions you don't like?

Or is it just me?

If it's in response to the "dren" incident, were you aware that a "dren" is the exact opposite of a "nerd," hence the spelling? At least, that's how it was presented in the show "Happy Days."

Really, I'm a nice guy, and I'm a fan to boot. If I'm doing stuff to annoy you, please, at least have the courtesy to tell me so, so I can stop voluntarily, as opposed to being summarily shut down.

Wow. That one went right through. Good thing I'm acquiring a taste for shoe leather.

Stephen--sometimes having a link included will keep you from being posted. It isn't PAD or Glen's doing. Once, the spam filter snagged me for some word that was in my post, thinking it was just spam. Too bad, because it was the best post on the Nigerian Viagra stock market iPod giveaway ever written.

Ah. Quite a fair wonder, this.

PAD, I humbly apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. Mea culpa.

Bill - Did we have to forward the post to ten people to get the offer??

Had to be more than ten. I did that, and I'm still waiting.

Thinking about this whole thing, maybe it's a simpler explanation. Maybe even Bush wants to get distance from himself.

No, the deal was if you didn't forward the offer to 10 people something very very bad would happen to you. And your pets.

It's all part of our "Carrot and Stick" approach to marketing. Apple--No More Mr Nice Guy

Boy oh Boy, any democratic candidate would be better than shrub.

Maybe even Bush wants to get distance from himself.

..or he could be sincere (?maybe?), and as he's done in the past, said something off the script which has unforeseen (to him) ramifications.

Unless someone suggested for him to say it, then I'd look for the man-behind-the-curtain's intent.

"Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply bcause he's a white male."

I'm not too sure about that. Edwards looks good enough on paper, but the man just blands his way down the memory hole. He shows up, he talks, people get behind his words, he leaves and an hour or two later he's more or less forgotten. Edwards lacks any true charisma and, in the cable TV and sound byte age, that's not a good thing for his chances. And it doesn't help any that the news people wrote their "Hillary as Nominee" scripts a year or so back and are sticking to it. The only exceptions to that are the ones who are making this thing the Clinton/Obama show. It seems like 95% of the news, the debates and the discussions on the Democratic prospects has been about Clinton and Obama. And of the 5% that's left over for all the other guys, a good portion of that is devoted to asking them about their views on Clinton or Obama.

Edwards has one and only one hope of seeing the White House Come January 2009 and that's being picked as the VP.

PAD, I humbly apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. Mea culpa.

No problem.

This is as good a place as any to post a general note that if you've been banned or shut down, you're not going to be wondering about it. You'll KNOW. Indeed, if you've provoked me to the point of being banned, you'd have been doing it deliberately and for quite a while. So no one should ever worry that some passing jest or simply disagreeing with me about something is going to get them shut down. If you're experiencing difficulties, chances are monumentally high that it's a system glitch.

PAD

he leaves and an hour or two later he's more or less forgotten.

So you are saying he's like chinese food?

Seriously, his being picked as the VP might not be so far fetched.

Seriously, his being picked as the VP might not be so far fetched.

Indeed. Just a little while ago, I was pondering how powerful and electable an Obama/Edwards ticket would be. (For my money, probably "pretty damn".)

I think it's less likely that he would be picked for VP than him actually winning the nomination.

There are a few reasons to pick a VP. One is to achieve party unity. Unless Edwards begins to pick up some support that doesn't seem too likely a reason. It also seems unlikely that Edwards supporters would possibly throw their support to the republican, whoever he may be.

You might also pick a VP to win his or her state. Didn't happen in 2004 so I don't think he'll get it for that reason.

I wonder--has a losing VP candidate EVER been subsequently put on a ticket as VP again?

Obama would be a great VP candidate and if Edwards actually got the presidential nomination I suppose that could happen. If it's Hillary...me, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be formidable but it would be so groundbreaking that I doubt Hillary's conservative tenancies would go for it. lus, they don't seem to like each other. Though the same could be said of Kennedy and Johnson--but Johnson had power and a big state worth of electoral votes.

Edwards' usefulness as a VP candidate depends on who they're running against.

Despite some of the details of his upbringing, George W. Bush comes across as a good 'ole boy. He's very much the kind of guy that the South feels comfortable with. Having a southerner as your running mate won't buy you much when you're facing off against Bush.

Rudi Giuliani is a different matter. Southern states aren't going to have a natural tendency to vote for him the way they do for Bush. Edwards might be more useful for the ticket against him. They might get a Southern state or two that they didn't get in 2004.

He didn't impress us much here in NC as a Senator (though he WAS smart enough to leave after one term) and he has not terribly impressed the Democratic primary voters, if the polls are to be believed.

You like to keep saying this, like Lincoln didn't lose his Senate bid in 1858 after representing Illinois in the House, and like Kerry didn't win the 2004 party nomination after polling near the bottom the December before. Exceptions to paradigms are the paradigm when it comes to national elections. The "normal model" ticket is never going to work in a national election.

If you read Jung, he talked about how model-adhering personalities like yourself, judging types he called them (and I don't mean that in an inherently bad way, since I am one also), are vulnerable to overlooking the real exceptions to the principles they see giving the form to their experiences.

I like Hillary and I like Edwards because their nearly identical stand on healthcare is the right agenda at the right time. However, your staking Hillary's victory almost entirely seemingly on the basis of her fitting some kind of vague model is a red flag to me that she has a vulnerability that can only be intuited at this point that a very successful trial lawyer might well exploit.

I wonder--has a losing VP candidate EVER been subsequently put on a ticket as VP again?

I couldn't find one in the history of the Democratic or Republican parties, although there are a couple cases of successful VP candidates going on to become unsuccessful VP candidates, and at least one unsuccessful VP candidate becoming President (FDR). (I assume you're referring to major party candidates who had at least a chance of being elected; if you broaden the field to everyone who's ever had their name on the ballot, I'm sure there have been some repeats among the minor parties.)

I'm sorry, Mike, if pointing out Edward's vulnerabilities upsets you but the facts are what they are. He did not impress greatly in his one term. He retired and endorsed Erskine Bowles, who was clobbered by the singularly uninspiring Richard Burr. The Kerry/Edwards ticket did not, in fact, carry North Carolina.

He has also not done great in the polls. He has not raised as much money as the front runners. If he loses Iowa it is most likely over. This is not true for either Clinton or Obama.

I suspect that Jung, a very bright fellow, would not find too much in the above to disagree with. As I am freely willing to contemplate the possibility that Edwards could still pull this off--indeed, I even proposed a scenario with just that outcome a few posts above--I don't know if he would actually consider me one of those model-adhering personalities you mention. But I'm sure he could find someone around here worth analysis. Yes indeed.

Although I'm flattered that you find my support of Hillary to be indicative of some mysterious vulnerability on her part, I hardly think of myself as any kind of oracle on these matters. The fact that I've been predicting that Hillary would be formidable in this election for some time is nothing to get overly excited over; lots of folks have been making the same prediction for some time, based on entirely logical reasons.

"Almost entirely seemingly"...wow, that's some mighty bold talk....

that was such an awesome line

...I'm STILL voting for Colbert.

He didn't impress us much here in NC as a Senator (though he WAS smart enough to leave after one term) and he has not terribly impressed the Democratic primary voters, if the polls are to be believed.

You like to keep saying this, like Lincoln didn't lose his Senate bid in 1858 after representing Illinois in the House, and like Kerry didn't win the 2004 party nomination after polling near the bottom the December before. Exceptions to paradigms are the paradigm when it comes to national elections. The "normal model" ticket is never going to work in a national election.

I'm sorry, Mike, if pointing out Edward's vulnerabilities upsets you but the facts are what they are.

...lots of folks have been making the same prediction for some time, based on entirely logical reasons.

It isn't your pointing out any vulnerability of Edwards that requires a reply, but the detachment from reality your notion that the least vulnerable candidate -- the safest candidate -- wins elections exhibits. It's perhaps the justification Kerry had for his inactivity in campaigning that lost him 2004. He was the least vulnerable candidate and look how that worked out for him.

I don't know if he would actually consider me one of those model-adhering personalities you mention.

I'm going by you explicitly referring to conformity as the standard of mental health. You didn't disagree when I emphasized this and explained Jung's challenge to that notion.

...your staking Hillary's victory almost entirely seemingly...

...wow, that's some mighty bold talk....

I have no resolve to be an indecent person and attribute things to you you haven't said, which is what I would have to have to do so.

Posted by Doug Atkinson at November 21, 2007 06:46 PM: I wonder--has a losing VP candidate EVER been subsequently put on a ticket as VP again?

I'm not sure, but let's not forget that VP Nixon lost his bid against Kennedy in 1960, and miraculously reappeared in 1968 as President, and we all know where that went.

My only problem w/ Obama is he's too good - there's got to be another shoe to drop, there's ALWAYS another shoe, and I fear another mess the Republicans will tear into like Pirhanas. I'd rather see a Clinton/Obama ticket, myself - sometimes the juxtaposition of two people who don't see eye to eye brings out the best, a devil's-advocate situation that keeps cool heads.I have no problems voting for Edwards, either. While I respect Giuliani's leadership abilities, I'm not sure I could vote for him.

I dread the backstabbing and BS we'll have to suffer in the coming year. After all the lies we've endured in the last 7 years, can't anyone run on an Honesty ticket?

I don't know if he would actually consider me one of those model-adhering personalities you mention.

You're right, Bill, I don't think he would. Jung based his typing on the subject's conscious focus on the function, but said he could have easily inverted his studies to focus on the unconscious. He decided not to because it was too easy to base typing on external observation (which seems to be what Freud does), discounting the subject's own account of his own experiences which he wanted to avoid. The model-building I cite from you seems to be unconscious, as you give no conscious account of any of it.

I feel compelled to point out that Lincoln's Senate loss is a poor example in that Senators were not directly elected by the people then. He lost because the other party still controlled the Illinois legislature, and the state legislature were the folks who decided who to send to the Senate.

In point of fact, it was Lincoln's strong performance in the 1858 debates with Douglas that got him the presidency in 1860; the debates themselves were just part of a longer-term strategy by the era's Republican party to gain in such ways.

It isn't your pointing out any vulnerability of Edwards that requires a reply, but the detachment from reality your notion that the least vulnerable candidate -- the safest candidate -- wins elections exhibits.

Well, it just shows how far we've come as a country that, to your thinking, a woman is a "safer" less vulnerable candidate than a white male lawyer. I guess it just illustrates the difficulty still faced by White male lawyers in this world. John Edwards is to be congratulated for defying the odds and making sure that the heretofore silent voices of our White Male lawyer brothers will be ignored no longer!

I keep hoping that *someone* in the running will announce that they will ask General Wesley Clark to be their VP. Yeah, he'd be Swiftboated but I'd like to think that people wouldn't fall for it again. Then again, I thought that George W. Bush was obviously, completely untrustworthy from day one, so I don't claim to represent the majority.

It isn't your pointing out any vulnerability of Edwards that requires a reply, but the detachment from reality your notion that the least vulnerable candidate -- the safest candidate -- wins elections exhibits. It's perhaps the justification Kerry had for his inactivity in campaigning that lost him 2004. He was the least vulnerable candidate and look how that worked out for him.

Well, it just shows how far we've come as a country that, to your thinking, a woman is a "safer" less vulnerable candidate than a white male lawyer.

That's a very mild non-disagreement to the observation elections don't go to the safest and least vulnerable candidate.

Re: Edwards as VP. In addition to not picking up his own state in 2004, he did at best lukewarm against Chaney in the VP debate, something that was unexpected due to his litigation experience. Personally, I thought Chaney narrowly won the debate...and I was not a Bush supporter.

Re: Obama. On the one hand, I was impressed by his visit to Google (available, as are the visits by Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, McCain, Gravel, Paul and maybe one I'm forgetting, at YouTube; search for "candidates Google"). But on the other hand, he mentioned having previously visited Google a few years ago and writing it up in his book.

I looked up Google in the index, and was somewhat dismayed to find that the majority of his account had to do with race. Yes, it's a shame that the Geodisplay is primarily dark for Africa (not a pun; the display shows via points of light how many search queries are coming from all over the world and there are few if any points in most of Africa) and there are few black or hispanic computer types at the level Google hires, but his whole take on the visit seemed to be viewed through a racial filter rather than the tech and business aspects.

Nice conversation in this string, but how does everyone think the Republican Caucus in Iowa will go. Why?

Because I think Governor Mike Huckabee will take Iowa by at least 5 percentage points--but probably more.

Further I think Obama will take Iowa by between 2-5 percent.

What does this mean for NH and then Super Tuesday?

A Whole New Ball Game. Outsiders win going into NH.

--Captain Naraht

P.S. It's nice to be back.

In addition to not picking up his own state in 2004, he did at best lukewarm against Chaney in the VP debate, something that was unexpected due to his litigation experience.

Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He's had how many debates to do so--500? 12000?--it's hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn't so much from anything the other candidates do, it's just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date.

Being a champ debater in college or a succesful trial lawyer does not automatically translate to being able to dazzle in the very different arena of TV appearances.

Captain Naraht--nice to have you back. Momentum certainly seems to have shifted to Obama in Iowa. Should he win...watch it get real ugly, real fast.

In addition to not picking up his own state in 2004, he did at best lukewarm against Chaney in the VP debate, something that was unexpected due to his litigation experience.

Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He's had how many debates to do so--500? 12000?--it's hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn't so much from anything the other candidates do, it's just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date.

America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda.

1. When Edwards debated Cheney:
   1. no one has specified what they are referring to when they say Edwards lost; all I remember is
      1. Cheney thanking Edwards for complementing him on his support of his gay daughter, and
      2. Gwen Ifill flabbergasting Cheney with the disproportionate rate of HIV infection between white and black women. Just because Bush beat Dukakis, that doesn't translate to a win for Quayle over Bentson.
   2. To paraphrase Mamet's Al Capone, winning the VP debate doesn't count for anything if the ticket doesn't win. Edwards didn't debate Cheney to sell himself as president.
2. Calling the primary debates "debates" is a misnomer. Saying whether Hillary lost to or beat Edwards is patently wrong, as well as moot, because there are no literal primary debates.

Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards.

Going into the 2004 Iowa Caucus, Dean had the money and was the expected winner, but he was fighting with Gephart, allowing Kerry and Edwards to sneak in ahead of them. The reports I'm hearing are that Barack and Hillary are very busy fighting each other for first to show much hate to the Edwards campaign.

I like Edwards and Clinton on healthcare, but people are saying Iraq is their first concern in a candidate, perhaps making Biden the surprise upset in January.

It may be true that Edwards could defeat the others in a "true" debate. That is as relevent as whether or not he could beat them in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippo. Nobody is going to give Edwards a "real" debate under his "own" agenda, whatever that may mean. Why should they?

I don't think it was Dean's fight with Gephart that hurt him as much as the primary voter's delusional idea that Kerry was somehow the safer more electable candidate. dean's passion spooked them. If anything, Edwards has traded his "nice guy" persona from the 2004 for a more Dean-like populist run, which is probably not helping his cause.

He can still win, if Hillary and Obama both melt down but hinging your success on others failure is seldom a winning strategy--and he's not the only one who might benefit from said melt down.

Bill Mulligan said: "It may be true that Edwards could defeat the others in a "true" debate. That is as relevent as whether or not he could beat them in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippo."

What you are all forgeting is that in addition to being a Governor, an ambassador, a US House Rep, and a Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson was also the 1996 Hungry Hungry Hippo Champion for the third straight year...

Makes ya think he might be a good President, huh?

--Captain Naraht

It may be true that Edwards could defeat the others in a "true" debate. That is as relevent as whether or not he could beat them in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippo.

As long as you keep portraying Edwards as incompetent in that regard, my correction is and continues to be relevant.

What you are all forgeting is that in addition to being a Governor, an ambassador, a US House Rep, and a Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson was also the 1996 Hungry Hungry Hippo Champion for the third straight year...

Makes ya think he might be a good President, huh?

If you don't mind Richardson tried to coerce Wen Ho Lee into pleading guilty, by leaking his name as under investigation and letting death threats from racists do his job for him rather than actually building a case against him.

Mike:

Not everything I type is meant seriously. I mean I was talking about Hungry Hungry Hippos, not a serious analysis of Governor Richardson for good or ill.

Didn't you ever make a joke just to be friendly?

---Captain Naraht

P.S. Heard any good jokes lately?

The fact that Edwards hasn't dazzled in the debates thus far does not make him incompetant. Just not as good as Hillary and Obama. Even his performance against Cheney wasn't all that bad--it's just that his supporters foolishly emphasized his skills as a trial lawyer, leading to expectations he was unable to fulfill.

In truth, it was not "debating" that turned Edwards "a hillbilly into a millionaire". A trial is not a debate, any more than these glorified multi-candidate press conferances are. Different rules, etc. Maybe if he convinced the others to abide by trial rules he would shine.

Don't know that I would classify his early life as that of a "hillbilly" either. Humble beginnings, sure, dad was a textile mill supervisor, mom was a letter carrier. If Edwards was a hillbilly what was Obama? Biden? Or is that strictly for southerners of modest backgrounds?

Pointing to Edwards' successful past as a trial lawyer to bolster an argument that he can win popular support in a political debate shows an absence of knowledge regarding the distinct differences between those two things. Much like the CSI Effect has warped people's "knowledge" of police forensics, the over abundance of courtroom dramas and dramadies has warped the way people view how courtroom proceedings are done.

I've been in court lots of times, I've had to give sworn testimony lots of times and I've had to sit through hours of boring testimony and general proceedings while waiting for my case to come up. Trust me, even Court TV jazzes stuff up to the point that it has now resemblance to reality. Courtroom "debates" are dry, dull and very much to the point. There is no drama, there is no jazz and there are no Matlocks pulling the surprising rabbit out of their hats. I'd rather watch a golf tournament on TV then watch real lawyers doing their thing for hours on end and, as anybody who knows me will confirm, I'd rather rip my eyes from Their sockets with a grapefruit spoon then watch golf on TV.

Political debates require some addressing of the facts, but the require connecting with an audience and putting on a good stage show far, far more then would ever be allowed in a well run courtroom. Edwards could conceivably be the best trial lawyer in the world, but that would only help him in the most basic way in a political debate. It's a bit like saying that just because a guy is really good at doing cycling marathons run through the city that he would make a great BMX/dirt bike racer. Different disciplines and different skill sets all together.

I wouldn't mind seeing Edwards make the ticket in some way, but I seriously doubt that this is going to happen. This is, unfortunately, totally Clinton's game to lose. Obama is the guy who'll be there to pick up the pieces should she have a great fall and I doubt either of them are going to tap Edwards as VP. The smart money is on Clinton or Obama at the top of the ticket with possibly Richardson or Biden in the VP seat.

---Captain Naraht
P.S. Heard any good jokes lately?

Honey, I'm busy at the moment. Can you change Ian's diaper?

Oh, wait... She was serious? Never mind. no good jokes lately.

Captain Naraht: "P.S. Heard any good jokes lately?"

Q: Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?
A: Because he was dead.

Huh...

No, I guess I haven't heard any *good* jokes lately either.

Not everything I type is meant seriously. I mean I was talking about Hungry Hungry Hippos, not a serious analysis of Governor Richardson for good or ill.

Didn't you ever make a joke just to be friendly?

---Captain Naraht

P.S. Heard any good jokes lately?

My reaction was appropriate to any analysis of Richardson's qualification to be president.

A rabbit sticks his head into the doorway of a bar and says to the bartender, "Got any cabbage?"

The bartender says, "Rabbit, I've told you five times today this is a bar, and I don't have cabbage. If you come in here again and ask me if I have cabbage, I will nail your ears to the floor."

Fifteen minutes later, the rabbit sticks his head into the doorway again and says, "Got any nails?"

The bartender says, "What? Have I got any nails? No, I don't have any nails."

The rabbit says, "Oh. Got any cabbage?"

If Edwards was a hillbilly what was Obama? Biden? Or is that strictly for southerners of modest backgrounds?

My understanding is that the rural poor of Appalachia are also referred to as hillbillies.

Obama's father was a Harvard PhD who became Minister of Finance in Kenya. If Biden was the first in his family to finish college, I haven't heard him say so. Part of Appalachia seems to run through Pennsylvania, so, yes, Biden might be a hillbilly.

Pointing to Edwards' successful past as a trial lawyer to bolster an argument that he can win popular support in a political debate shows an absence of knowledge regarding the distinct differences between those two things.

Putting word in my mouth shows an ignorance of what has been said in this thread. You aren't going to find the word "popular" or any of its synonyms referring to Edwards in any of my posts.

As long as you keep portraying Edwards as incompetent in that regard, my correction is and continues to be relevant.

Putting word in my mouth shows an ignorance of what has been said in this thread.

Given your high standards on this would you kindly point out where I called Edwards an incompetent debater?

Me: ”Pointing to Edwards' successful past as a trial lawyer to bolster an argument that he can win popular support in a political debate shows an absence of knowledge regarding the distinct differences between those two things.”

Mike: ”Putting word in my mouth shows an ignorance of what has been said in this thread. You aren't going to find the word "popular" or any of its synonyms referring to Edwards in any of my posts.”

Well, gee, Mike, you haven’t been using the word “popular: in your posts. It doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been talking about the concept of Edwards winning popular support due to his masterfully honed debating skills. You’ve been championing Edwards as the man and talking about how his long experience as a lawyer, his path “from a hillbilly into a millionaire” as you put it, should be noted when critics are downplaying his debating skills. Well, if that’s not promoting the idea that he could win popular support in a debate with Clinton, Obama or the GOP’s nominee, then what are you going on about?

Seriously, if you’re not saying that he can win popular support with the superior debating skills that you so erroneously wish to attribute to him, then what good is he as the head of the ticket? What, you think maybe that it would be a good thing that Edwards would debate the GOP nominee and get more “victories” on miscellaneous points of minutia but not win popular support amongst the voters? What, you think it would be all fine and dandy that while watching President Rudy sworn in, everyone thinks to themselves that Edwards really did “win” the debates if not the popular support of the voters?

Whether you want to use the word ”popular” or not, you’ve been building an argument around Edwards being able to win popular support amongst the voters and thus the popular vote. If you’re going to deny that, then you’ll look pretty stupid holding Edwards up as the man to take it all except the important things like voter support.

And, again, the things that you’ve been throwing out there in your last few posts to back the idea that Edwards is a superior debater are, to be kind, questionable in their ability to bolster your argument.

Mike: “America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda.”

Doesn’t matter. A truly good and skilled debater could be handed any subject to debate and do well with it. That’s a basic Debate 101 skill. One of the things that lots of good debaters will tell you is that you can apply the tools and the talent you gave to any subject if you really do have the tools and the talent. Plus, your idea that he’s such a great debater due to his lawyer days negates your objection that he was never debating on his own agenda. You would have to be naive beyond measure to believe that Edwards 100% believed in every case he undertook and won in all the years that he was a lawyer.

Mike: “Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards.”

Again, you’re confusing the ability to do the one thing well with the ability to do the other equally well. You’re suffering under the “my dog has four legs” fallacy. Debating in the political arena and making a case in court are two completely different disciplines with two completely different skill sets. Just because they both involve talking your way into “winning” does not mean that they share any true similarities past surface appearances. Your points are weak, your logic here is badly flawed and your stance on this issue is precarious at best.

Edwards is not the go to guy for 2008, he won’t be the go to guy in 2008 and at this point he will be lucky to see his name on the ticket at all in 2008.

Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He's had how many debates to do so--500? 12000?--it's hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn't so much from anything the other candidates do, it's just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date.

America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda.

1. When Edwards debated Cheney:
   1. no one has specified what they are referring to when they say Edwards lost; all I remember is
      1. Cheney thanking Edwards for complementing him on his support of his gay daughter, and
      2. Gwen Ifill flabbergasting Cheney with the disproportionate rate of HIV infection between white and black women. Just because Bush beat Dukakis, that doesn't translate to a win for Quayle over Bentson.
   2. To paraphrase Mamet's Al Capone, winning the VP debate doesn't count for anything if the ticket doesn't win. Edwards didn't debate Cheney to sell himself as president.
2. Calling the primary debates "debates" is a misnomer. Saying whether Hillary lost to or beat Edwards is patently wrong, as well as moot, because there are no literal primary debates.

Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards.

It may be true that Edwards could defeat the others in a "true" debate. That is as relevent as whether or not he could beat them in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippo.

As long as you keep portraying Edwards as incompetent in that regard, my correction is and continues to be relevant.

Given your high standards on this would you kindly point out where I called Edwards an incompetent debater?

I literally haven't said you called Edwards an incompetent debater.

It doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been talking about the concept of Edwards winning popular support due to his masterfully honed debating skills.

You are literally Wrong.™ You can't cite an example because it doesn't exist.

America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda.

A truly good and skilled debater could be handed any subject to debate and do well with it. That’s a basic Debate 101 skill.

What are you arguing? Is there anything in particular you are trying to convince anyone of, other than that you need to issue vague challenges to what I say simply because I say them?

Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards.

You’re suffering under the “my dog has four legs” fallacy. Debating in the political arena and making a case in court are two completely different disciplines with two completely different skill sets.

Debating politics and debating liability do not have to be interchangeable for what I said to be true.

Yup, brick wall safely intact...

Well, go ahead Mike, tell me what it was that you claimed I was portraying Edwards as incompetent in. Or just admit you "put words in my mouth' and accept the display of "ignorance" for what it is.

Or just stonewall. Whatever. You no longer have the respect (if you ever did) of anyone here to make scoring a point on you worth anything. What. So. Ever.

You know, getting away from Mikeworld for a moment, isn't it kind of scary that PAD's tongue in cheek observation could almost seem to be coming true--since the Bush "endorsement" she has slipped in the polls. Hmmm....

Mike: ”What are you arguing?”

I am saying that your statement…

”America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda.”

… was an extremely poor rebuttal to the point that Mulligan and others have made in regards to Edwards. It was pointed out that Edwards did poorly in the 2004 debates, you attempted to counter that with your “agenda” statement and I merely informed you of the poorly thought out nature of your statement. It doesn’t matter if Edwards was debating the merits of Kerry’s platform rather then his own in 2004 as a truly skilled debater could have easily done so. If your assessment of Edwards’ skills were accurate, then your point about not arguing his agenda in 2004 would be irrelevant.

Mike: ”Debating politics and debating liability do not have to be interchangeable for what I said to be true.”

Well, since you yourself were holding up his skills as a lawyer and his past successes in that arena as some level of support for your argument that he would do great as the man to have in the 2008 debates… One would think that you somehow actually believed what you were saying, but I’ll admit that we all could have been mistaken in that belief.

Mike: ”You are literally Wrong.™ You can't cite an example because it doesn't exist.”

Well, then, again, tell us what you were supposedly trying to say if you weren’t trying to say that Edwards’ debating skills would win him the debates and therefore the popular support of a majority of the voters. Again, are you really saying that Edwards is THE MAN because he can win meaningless debating points but will totally fail to win the popular support of the voters and therefore lose the election to the Republican nominee? If you're somehow now trying to say that you were never implying that Edwards would be a strong nominee because of his ability to capture popular support, then what were you going on about?

Bill Mulligan: “It may be true that Edwards could defeat the others in a "true" debate. That is as relevent as whether or not he could beat them in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippo.”

Mike: “As long as you keep portraying Edwards as incompetent in that regard, my correction is and continues to be relevant.”

Bill Mulligan: “Given your high standards on this would you kindly point out where I called Edwards an incompetent debater?”

Mike: “I literally haven't said you called Edwards an incompetent debater.”

Yes, of course… You were of course responding to Mulligan by disputing his view of Edwards as “incompetent in that regard” by interpreting “that regard” as a reference to being a poor Hungry Hungry Hippo player. Of course, only a truly naïve baboon would believe that, so the obvious reading of that exchange would be yet another example of Mike putting his foot in his mouth and then running the English language through the spin cycle rather then simply manning up and admitting that Mike got it wrong. Again.

Oh, and for the record… Disputing whether or not Edwards is the best debater in the group does not automatically = saying that Edwards is an incompetent debater. It’s only your misinterpretation or deliberate twisting of what others have said in order to create your strawman that has come anywhere near that idea. Edwards is not an incompetent debater, he’s just not all that and a slice of fried gold as you seem to want others to believe.

Anywho…

Bill Mulligan: “You know, getting away from Mikeworld for a moment, isn't it kind of scary that PAD's tongue in cheek observation could almost seem to be coming true--since the Bush "endorsement" she has slipped in the polls. Hmmm....”

Yeah, but I think that actually started as far back as her slip up over answer to the “Licenses for illegals” question in that debate a couple of weeks back. It wasn’t really that great a screw up, but it was enough of one given the rather slim lead that she had in some quarters. The true test for everybody here is how well she’ll recover from this (or not) and how well the other will capitalize on this (or not) before the next big event/poll. It’ll also be interesting to see how the various news outlets play up the day by day news of this thing given that there seems to be very clear examples of anchors and even entire networks already picking their sides and having the script for who wins the Democratic and Republican nominations and the 2008 election itself already written in their minds.

Your right on all points. her screwup was not all that bad. One of the disadvantages of doing well in so many debates is that if you have an off night (and it wasn't her best showing, though hardly a disaster) the sharks smell blood.

But what made it the big deal it's turned out to be was Team hillary's overreaction. I have to think that she may not have full control of her spokemen; this was too poorly handled to have her fingerprints on it. They made a molehill into a mountain and played the gender card way too early. Now, when (not if) she does it against the Republican nominee he will, with some just cause, be able to say "There she goes again!"

Plus, she either should have stuck to her guns on the Licenses issue or admitted she was changing her mind after careful consideration--make lemons from lemonaid and all that. As it was she looked even more like a flip flopper and got hurt.

She was back to her winning ways in the next debate (and Obama seemed unusually weak) but the damage seems to have been done. An Obama victory in Iowa seems a real possibility now. I have to wonder how badly her team might hit the panic button then.

I still give her the definite advantage in the race but these self inflicted wounds give one pause.

Obama might have been in a good position, but now he’s being slammed left and right by the press for what was absolutely NOTHING. I’ve been watching the news and listening to the news a lot the last few days, and they’re playing up Obama discussing his past “youthful indiscretions” at that high school as if it was in the same vein as his being found with drugs in his pockets at the airport over the weekend. Ok… Maybe not that much. Still, it will be interesting to see how much the press skews the perception of people who only catch the quick blips on how Obama discussed his past underage alcohol and drug experimentation.

The thing I find funny as hell about this is that it’s nothing new. Obama mentioned this in his book and I’ve seen him mention it before in speeches carried on C-Span. The only difference this go round was in the setting and I can’t for the life of me see what’s wrong with telling a group of high school kids that they’re not damned forever for any mistakes that they may have made or be making now. What would the marching morons in the media have preferred him to say? Maybe they thought Obama should lie about his past or tell those kids that they may as well quit now because that pot they experimented with last month means that they’ve flushed their entire lives down the drain?

What’s even funnier though is watching the conservative media defending Obama and his statements. Some of them may honestly just have the same POV on the thing that I do, but I can’t help but think that even they knew that criticizing Obama’s past “youthful indiscretions” would seem funny as hell after their defending George “Tumbler” Bush’s checkered past. And harder still to trash him when you think about the fact that Obama supposedly had his revelation to clean up his act in college whereas Bush had his in his 40s.

Oh, Captain Naraht--nice to see you back on the threads.

Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He's had how many debates to do so--500? 12000?--it's hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn't so much from anything the other candidates do, it's just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date.

America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda.

1. When Edwards debated Cheney:
   1. no one has specified what they are referring to when they say Edwards lost; all I remember is
      1. Cheney thanking Edwards for complementing him on his support of his gay daughter, and
      2. Gwen Ifill flabbergasting Cheney with the disproportionate rate of HIV infection between white and black women. Just because Bush beat Dukakis, that doesn't translate to a win for Quayle over Bentson.
   2. To paraphrase Mamet's Al Capone, winning the VP debate doesn't count for anything if the ticket doesn't win. Edwards didn't debate Cheney to sell himself as president.
2. Calling the primary debates "debates" is a misnomer. Saying whether Hillary lost to or beat Edwards is patently wrong, as well as moot, because there are no literal primary debates.

Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards.

It may be true that Edwards could defeat the others in a "true" debate. That is as relevent as whether or not he could beat them in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippo.

As long as you keep portraying Edwards as incompetent in that regard, my correction is and continues to be relevant.

Given your high standards on this would you kindly point out where I called Edwards an incompetent debater?

I literally haven't said you called Edwards an incompetent debater.

Well, go ahead Mike, tell me what it was that you claimed I was portraying Edwards as incompetent in. Or just admit you "put words in my mouth' and accept the display of "ignorance" for what it is.

If you care to look at text I've bolded in your excerpted from your post, you've portrayed Edwards as an incompetent debater, and I said so. You then asked me where you called Edwards an incompetent debater, and I responded that I literally haven't said you called Edwards an incompetent debater.

You are treating "calling" someone something and "portraying" someone something as interchangeably equal actions. What is wrong with you? How can you stand so much Wrongness™ in your life? Do you live so far from where you were raised so you can teach in some secluded community where they don't draw attention to how reliably wrong you are?

I am saying that your statement... "America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda." ... was an extremely poor rebuttal to the point that Mulligan and others have made in regards to Edwards.

It's literally true. Nationally, he's only debated to Cheney to further the ticket Kerry led.

It was pointed out that Edwards did poorly in the 2004 debates, you attempted to counter that with your “agenda” statement and I merely informed you of the poorly thought out nature of your statement.

That's perhaps because the simple citing of facts requires hardly any thought at all. There is an obvious instance where the citing of facts is labored, and that's in lying, like the way you need to put words in my mouth to challenge anything I have to say.

It doesn’t matter if Edwards was debating the merits of Kerry’s platform rather then his own in 2004 as a truly skilled debater could have easily done so. If your assessment of Edwards’ skills were accurate, then your point about not arguing his agenda in 2004 would be irrelevant.

Are you even saying Edwards lost to Cheney? Why do you refuse to say Edwards lost to Cheney, if you don't want to be held to something you can't even demonstrate?

Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards....

Debating politics and debating liability do not have to be interchangeable for what I said to be true.

Well, since you yourself were holding up his skills as a lawyer and his past successes in that arena as some level of support for your argument that he would do great as the man to have in the 2008 debates… One would think that you somehow actually believed what you were saying, but I’ll admit that we all could have been mistaken in that belief.

Do you require instruction in the definition of the word true?

When I annoy Bill Mulligan or Peter, it makes sense that they should want to rebut me. You have to fabricate things for me to have said and rebut them to indulge in the pretense of challenging anything I say. Who are you? There is no we for you to care about. There's just some guy you portray as unworthy of your attention -- who you keep picking fights with -- and you. What is your malfunction?

Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards.

Well, gee, Mike, you haven’t been using the word “popular: in your posts. It doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been talking about the concept of Edwards winning popular support due to his masterfully honed debating skills.

You are literally Wrong.™ You can't cite an example because it doesn't exist.

Well, then, again, tell us what you were supposedly trying to say if you weren’t trying to say that Edwards’ debating skills would win him the debates and therefore the popular support of a majority of the voters. Again, are you really saying that Edwards is THE MAN because he can win meaningless debating points but will totally fail to win the popular support of the voters and therefore lose the election to the Republican nominee? If you're somehow now trying to say that you were never implying that Edwards would be a strong nominee because of his ability to capture popular support, then what were you going on about?

In case you missed it after the umteenth iteration:

Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can't go wrong with Edwards.

This was my response to Bill Mulligan portraying Edwards as a poor debater. You haven't said this is wrong. Instead you have to fabricate something wrong for me to have said.

Simple pleasures, Jerry. They will save you.

[Bill] Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He's had how many debates to do so--500? 12000?--it's hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn't so much from anything the other candidates do, it's just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date.

It may be true that Edwards could defeat the others in a "true" debate. That is as relevent as whether or not he could beat them in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippo.

As long as you keep portraying Edwards as incompetent in that regard, my correction is and continues to be relevant.

Yes, of course… You were of course responding to Mulligan by disputing his view of Edwards as “incompetent in that regard” by interpreting “that regard” as a reference to being a poor Hungry Hungry Hippo player. Of course, only a truly naïve baboon would believe that, so the obvious reading of that exchange would be yet another example of Mike putting his foot in his mouth and then running the English language through the spin cycle rather then simply manning up and admitting that Mike got it wrong. Again.

Do you require instruction on the definition of the word keep as well? Jerry, are you not well?

If you care to look at text I've bolded in your excerpted from your post, you've portrayed Edwards as an incompetent debater, and I said so. You then asked me where you called Edwards an incompetent debater, and I responded that I literally haven't said you called Edwards an incompetent debater.

You are treating "calling" someone something and "portraying" someone something as interchangeably equal actions. What is wrong with you? How can you stand so much Wrongness™ in your life? Do you live so far from where you were raised so you can teach in some secluded community where they don't draw attention to how reliably wrong you are?

I accept your admission of your ignorance. You literally cannot support your contention that I portrayed him as an incompetent debater. All the rest is sound and whiny, designed to salvage your needy self esteem.

When I annoy Bill Mulligan or Peter,

can't talk for PAD but you stopped "annoying" me long ago, if you ever did. On occasion, you amuse. Dance!

Oh, meant to add:

A grasshopper hops into a bar. The bartender says, "You're quite a celebrity around here. We've even got a drink named after you." The grasshopper says, "You've got a drink named Steve?"

Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He's had how many debates to do so--500? 12000?--it's hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn't so much from anything the other candidates do, it's just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date....

You literally cannot support your contention that I portrayed him as an incompetent debater.

I literally referred to an excerpt of what you've said as a portrayal of Edwards as an incompetent debater. As your denial depends on your discretion and not on the plain observation of what has taken place, I don't see how it doesn't qualify as needy.

can't talk for PAD but you stopped "annoying" me long ago, if you ever did. On occasion, you amuse. Dance!

Since it's been observed you can count on my persistent posting, it's a wonder anyone feels the need to disagree with anything I say. Lonely, Bill? Socialized-healthcare-leaning web developers are waiting for your call. All major credit cards accepted.

Jerry wrote: ...but now he’s being slammed left and right by the press...

You know, we can debate (no pun intended) until we are blue in the face about the candidates debating skills; but the biggest issue for a candidate is handling the press. (For the record a good debater should be able to reasonably argue any agenda, not just his own. It's a basic training exercise.)

I'd be interested in seeing percentages of voters who actually watch and understand the debates versus those who just go by what their local and "objective" news agencies report.

Mike, you'll just have to chalk this one up as a loss. I know you can't but that's how it goes. Saying that Edwards has not won any of the debates thus far (which even you seem to admit, though you think it's because the other candidates just won't allow him to debate on his terms with his agenda. The meanies!) is just not the same as calling him incompetent. Everyone knows it. Even you know it. Now you're just going for sympathy from those who are inclined to give you slack for your, um, problems.

And let's see...you've asked for my wife's cell phone number and now invited me to call you...and I'm the "lonely" one! It is to chuckle.

Anyway, have the last word (but please don't try to bait me with some sad attack on a family member or some such other sad attempt to get a reply. Have some dignity.)

Onto more intelligent fare:

Christine--good points. So far Hillary has handled the press like a pro, to the point where she has been able to get poor stories spiked at Vanity Fair. She seldom gives interviews and when she does there is the unspoken implication that a bad interview may well be the last one for that venue that either she or Bill give. That's gotta spook any network that sees the very real possibility of 4 or 8 years of being frozen out of good guests for their Sunday talk shows.

In other words, I don't expect Ms. Couric to be hard hitting with her exclusive (though she might surprise and go for broke. I doubt it though.)

The danger of this is that it breeds no small amount of resentment and if the candidate shows any weakness the worms may well turn. If Team Hillary has a really bad showing in Iowa they may be in for a barrage of bad press, more than they can manage through threats alone.

(really, hasn't this been a cool election cycle so far? So much up in the air, so many new factors...)

Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He's had how many debates to do so--500? 12000?--it's hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn't so much from anything the other candidates do, it's just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date....

Well, go ahead Mike, tell me what it was that you claimed I was portraying Edwards as incompetent in. Or just admit you "put words in my mouth' and accept the display of "ignorance" for what it is....

You literally cannot support your contention that I portrayed him as an incompetent debater....

Mike, you'll just have to chalk this one up as a loss. I know you can't but that's how it goes. Saying that Edwards has not won any of the debates thus far (which even you seem to admit, though you think it's because the other candidates just won't allow him to debate on his terms with his agenda. The meanies!) is just not the same as calling him incompetent. Everyone knows it. Even you know it. Now you're just going for sympathy from those who are inclined to give you slack for your, um, problems.

I quoted you saying substantially more than Edwards has not won any of the debates thus far. You Ridiculed™ his debating. Everyone knows it. Even you know it. You're just going for the "say something wrong long enough until people believes it" Peter likes to complain about that nurtures your, uh, Hypocrisy.™

Anyway, have the last word (but please don't try to bait me with some sad attack on a family member or some such other sad attempt to get a reply. Have some dignity.)

You can count on me honoring this boundary because I play by rules.

The danger of this is that it breeds no small amount of resentment and if the candidate shows any weakness the worms may well turn. If Team Hillary has a really bad showing in Iowa they may be in for a barrage of bad press, more than they can manage through threats alone.

Oh, no doubt the media would be circling just like sharks if there is the smallest trace of blood. Lord knows that Hillary better not try anything with her interns.

Granted, if she did something good about the housing situation here on Long Island, I might beat off the press for her myself.

On a similar note - I'd also like to see what effect celebrity endorsements have on the voters. Will anyone vote for Obama because Oprah gave him her thumbs up?

Lord knows that Hillary better not try anything with her interns.

Some of the more desperate supporters of her opposition have already started similar rumours.

I'd also like to see what effect celebrity endorsements have on the voters. Will anyone vote for Obama because Oprah gave him her thumbs up?

Good question. I think it might backfire--Obama's problem is not his lack of star appeal or charisma. Far from it. It's the sense, rightly or wrongly, that he lacks gravitas or the intestinal fortitude to face international crisis'. Getting celeb endorsements is the last thing he needs.

On the other hand, Hillary might benefit from a more emotional touch--an Oprah endorsement might have helped her but it's not to be.

You have to imagine that Chuck Norris' endorsement of Mike Hukkabee has to help. After all, Chuck Norris once went to The Virgin Islands. Now they are known as just The Islands.

Mike – Sad, very, very sad. It shouldn’t still amaze me that you’re incapable of simple discussion or debate for more then a couple of posts before retreating into Mike World, but it still sometimes does. I occasionally get this overly optimistic, and maybe overly naïve, idea that, since you have to be able to function in the real world, one of your acquaintances or co-workers will steer you towards the proper psychological help and/or medication.

Still, it is nice to see that you seem to be learning some new things and that you’re trying to expand your signature silliness beyond Of Mice and Men. Although, for the life of me, I can’t figure out what rules you’re trying to tell people that you live by with your new fetish signature statement. You keep saying “you play by rules” and linking the same post over and over again, but the post you link to doesn’t really explain what rules you seem to believe that you play by.

Are you saying that everything that you say is a koan? Are you saying that the rules you play by require frequent linking to other posts? Since the post you linked to has you quoting both yourself and others while altering the words from what was originally written, are you saying that your rules of the game are fabricating what others have said on the page or just simply in your own mind?

Oh… Never mind. If this keeps going then I’ll be at risk of slipping off of the wagon and joining in whatever session of whack-a-troll gets started. Done with you now. There just are too many rational adults around here to talk to.

Christine,

I agree that the candidates have to have better skills dealing with the press, but I’m not sure that this will help them when the press has no intention of treating them fairly. Ron Paul is my favorite example of this. When Fox News held the first Republican debate, they were promoting their great new system for seeing how the live audience reacted to the debaters and how even the at home viewer was set up through a secure system to pick the “winner” of that night’s debate. When the results came in showing that Ron Paul beat the Fox News anointed ones, there was a total meltdown on air by several commentators. Hannity was the most laughable as he had been really playing up the system and Rudy Giuliani’s superior performance all night long. When the results came in and Ron Paul beat Giuliani, Hannity lost it. He declared Giuliani the night’s winner and kept claiming that the system that Fox News had in place was faulty and that it was somehow corrupted by people that got through the security features in it.

When the second Fox News debate rolled around and Ron Paul did a repeat performance trick, Hannity flipped again. The Fox News audience again scored Paul high and the Fox News text poll put Paul over Giuliani by a good margin. When Paul mentioned the text poll to Hannity at the after interview, Hannity, while having had trumpeted the Fox News text polls of the past as major news when they fit his and/or the fox News script of the day, played down Paul’s win by claiming that the text poll was a meaningless little game just meant to let Fox News viewers have a little fun.

The script that Hannity and Fox News as a whole have says “President Giuliani” all over it. That’s the story that they’ve written and that, by God, will be the story that plays out no matter what reality has to say about it.

CNN really does seem to be Hillary friendly this go round in a way that it never really was when Bill was in office. MSNBC seems to be split between pro Hillary and pro Obama camps and their news casts tend to play heavily for those two and, at their worst, against the other nominees. The best shake the others get seems to be puff pieces to show what a great VP they might make for Hillary or Obama.

And poor Edwards isn’t even getting that. The talking head point of the day on today’s MSNBC news chats was about how Hillary needed to start attacking Edwards as well as Obama since throwing Edwards into the mix would siphon just enough support from Obama as to neutralize his actual threat potential. Edwards wasn’t being presented as a viable option, he was merely a good tool to be used by Hillary and then disposed of when he no longer served her needs.

Nah… Their skills may help them with wrangling the media a bit, but if they’re not the anointed ones… They’re screwed.

Bill,

I’d normally agree with your point about celebrity, but Oprah is a slightly different nut to crack. I think that it’s entirely possible that she will sway some of her fans who were on the fence and that she may bring in for Obama more then a few people who may not have planned on voting for anybody at all come next November. I mean, Oprah has some strange powers of influence over her fans. I know a few Oprah fans that, as a general rule, just don’t bother to read anything. They’ll rush right out, buy and read anything that Oprah recommends on her show or website though. There are a number of celebrities who’ll pimp a book or a movie and have almost zero effect on generating any real extra book or ticket sales. Now, I know that this doesn’t automatically translate to the power to make non-voters vote, but it takes a lot less time and effort to vote then it does to go out and get a book and spend how ever many days it takes to read the thing.

You might be right, I guess I've just never gotten the whole Oprah deal. She seems nice enough but hardly worth revolving one's life around. But she does have her devotees.

She's no Chuck Norris though. Chuck Norris does not get frostbite. Chuck Norris bites frost

Yeah, I could never figure out Oprah’s appeal. I mean, she’s ok in her own way, but she’s damned sure no Michael Berryman!

Oh HELL no, she's not!

Y'know, the whole Oprah thing--I used to work with a woman whose 3 goals in life were meeting Debbie Gibson, meeting Oprah, and getting me to teach her how to kiss. We worked in an amusement park, I was tight with one of the t-shirt airbrush artists, so she painted me as my D&D character, and she did this woman's shirt, not as herself, but she did a characature of Oprah. So, yeah, she's got some SERIOUS devotees.

Mike – Sad, very, very sad. It shouldn’t still amaze me that you’re incapable of simple discussion or debate for more then a couple of posts before retreating into Mike World, but it still sometimes does. I occasionally get this overly optimistic, and maybe overly naïve, idea that, since you have to be able to function in the real world, one of your acquaintances or co-workers will steer you towards the proper psychological help and/or medication.

Does this comment refer to anything I've said?

...for the life of me, I can’t figure out what rules you’re trying to tell people that you live by with your new fetish signature statement. You keep saying “you play by rules” and linking the same post over and over again, but the post you link to doesn’t really explain what rules you seem to believe that you play by.

I've been referring to the linked post a lot. If you required further explanation, you should have said something sooner.

The post by Bill Myers I responded to seems to be typical in trying to portray me as damaged goods for my indifference to your pack mentality.

Mike has shown an inability to empathize with other human beings, Micha. Whether it's willful or indicative of a deficiency over which he has no control, I don't know. Frankly, I've realized that he is entirely irrelevant and I no longer bother to address him directly.

In response to measuring worth by conformity to your pack, I referred to a paradigm in the major religions that what I say here is consistent with. It is a paradigm no one has portrayed as deficient, therefore my consistency with this paradigm demonstrates all portrayals of me as damaged goods thus far are Wrong.™

Specifically, it's the notion in the major religions that reason cannot fulfill all the needs of the individual:

In the Old Testament, God acknowledges Job's grievance against Him, but responds by giving a nonsensical account of His accomplishments, to which Job ultimately bows rather than take his wife's advice to curse God.

According to Joseph Campbell, in Islam Satan didn't fall from heaven because he considered himself too good to bow to man, as God ordered him to do, but because he was single-mindedly devoted to God and he refused to bow to man because he tried to make that devotion all things to him. Hell is hell to Satan because of the absence of the object of his devotion, God, in his banishment.

Even in the grail myth there is a criticism of the sterile rationalizations of the grail-king, which is the foundation of his wounded state.

This notion that reason cannot cannot fulfill all the needs of an individual is formally institutionalized in Buddhism in the practice of the koan. The koan most commonly referred to in the west are the most curt ones, asking the sound of one hand clapping, asking the the sound of a falling if there is no listener, etc.

One famous koan-like incident that comes to mind is of an intruder interrupting a Zen master holding court with his students. He says that the Zen master is a fraud and that he can't manipulate the intruder.

The Zen master tells him to listen and he can demonstrate how he can make the intruder obey his will. The Zen master tells the intruder to approach him, then tells him to stop. Then he tells the intruder to move to his right and when to stop. Then he tells the intruder he's moved too far and to move back a little to the left. Then he says, "Thank you, you've obeyed my will perfectly. Now sit down and shut up."

If you don't understand what all this has to do with anything, simply consider this:

1. as far as I can tell, everything I say that has antagonized people here qualifies as a koan,
2. all koans must be sincere to qualify as koans, and
3. as far as posterity is concerned, all the accusations against me that I'm a troll will only carry weight with those who don't know what a koan is (the whole of Peter's readership, apparently), and are too disinterested to research it to learn what it is.

When referring to posterity, my critics here on occasion have portrayed academia in high esteem in judging me. The three items above are what must be overcome for that judgment to be harsh. You might want to consider getting as comfortable as you can with the prospect those notions will endure indefinitely.

There was an episode of "This American Life" earlier this year where Ira Glass talks about a child who witnessed her father trading money for her teeth, she concluded that her father was the Tooth Fairy. He explicitly said that although she was wrong, she was being completely rational -- and he was right in accord to the Jungian notion of rationality. Like the child's reasoning that her father was the Tooth Fairy, your notion of measuring one's well-being by his or her fidelity to your pack mentality is completely rational -- and Wrong.™

Because you don't seem to comprehend that reason cannot fulfill all the needs of the individual, you fail to understand that not all reason leads to the same reason. You cite your privilege to disagree with what I say as proof of a mental disorder. I don't share your dysfunction of needing to portray privilege as reason, and this flabbergasts you so much many of you feel the need to question my sincerity.

By citing how the major religions portray reason as inadequate in fulfilling all the needs of an individual, I've demonstrated how that which makes a person whole does not depend on fidelity to your precious pack mentality. Therefore you must present something other than my indifference to your pack on which to portray me as damaged goods.

So...did you teach her how to kiss?

Mike, kindly stop posting on this thread. There is something important going on here that might get lost in all your screen-hogging, multi-referential dribble:

I, also, gotta find out if Sean taught that woman how to kiss. Sounds HOT! ;)

I think I’ve heard this story before. It wasn't that hot. Sean spent the tail end of the summer showing her how to kiss and then a month later she became on Indigo Girls’ groupie.

~8?)

Mike, kindly stop posting on this thread. There is something important going on here that might get lost in all your screen-hogging, multi-referential dribble...

Alan, kindly observe I was replying to questions directed at me. Kindly set the example for denying me further questions by not addressing me.

Jesus, why does he always go politcal on us whenever he gets bored?

Stick to the capes, writer-boy; its what you know best.

Jerry: I agree that the candidates have to have better skills dealing with the press, but I’m not sure that this will help them when the press has no intention of treating them fairly.

Agreed. Someone could be the best and most talented animal trainer, but a cranky tiger could end their career easily.

On a similar note, a candidate's skills could just barely keep them from being kitty chow for the press.

Bill Mulligan: I guess I've just never gotten the whole Oprah deal.

I kinda get it. Oprah comes across as a genuinely good person; and though her show has helped many people by educating them. The main issue is that people confuse the wisdom of choosing good guests for her show with her being wise in all areas. Therefore, for some, her endorsement has a good deal of pull.

I think Oprah is a smart woman who has surrounded herself with very smart people; and I respect what she has accomplished. However, does her endorsement of Obama sway me? Not a bit.

What would really sway me is someone who can keep people like this guy off the streets - and maybe sitting in the corner with a dunce cap for the next 40 years. His license was suspended 40 times - can we say that the suspensions do not bother him a bit? http://www.newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-lilice275477860nov27,0,1436098.story

Sean: You can't just leave us hanging. Did you teach her? Is Jerry right, did she become an Indigo Girls groupie? Would she give you a written recommendation? Enquiring minds want to know! ;-)

You can always ignore the threads that don't interest you...it's pretty easy to do. Give it a try. Some of us enjoy this stuff and I see no reason why that should bother you.

though her show

Dang typos. THROUGH not though

"Some of us enjoy this stuff and I see no reason why that should bother you."

My God, do you ever need to get a life.

"The White House WANTS Clinton to be the Democratic candidate, and so they mention only her so the Democrats think they're afraid of her and give her the nomination."

The White House doesn't give half a shite about the Democratic candidate like that. Assuming that the President genuinely and sincerely believes that the best thing for our soldiers and our civilian citizens is to continue this war... then all he care about is that a War President gets elected next. But I assume he is being upfront when he states that he doesn't care so much about how the near future's history judges him.

"The Bush administration has been very steady about Clinton being the candidate to beat. Remember Rove's exit interviews? He kept going on and on about Clinton, but when asked about Obama he went quiet."

That's because Hillary Clinton is more famous than any one Republican candidate and easily more of a celebrity than Obama.

Honestly comparing Obama to Hillary in this kind of contest is like putting Space Cases and the original Star Trek head to head in competing time slots.

If I was Karl Rove I wouldn't talk about Obama either. It's like asking Leonard Maltin how my independent film will do nationwide against a re-release of Star Wars. Answering the question would be a waste of his life force.

That doesn't mean I agree with President Bush; far from it. Governor Bill Richardson is the Democrat Party candidate most qualified to be President. he is also one of the least popular and probably is the least famous.

"do people still listen to what the goob has to say??"

He is the President. My gosh. One regret I have is that when Bill Clinton was President I didn't respect him more, at least out of respect for the office. No matter who is President, the office deserves respect, even if you believe that the person behind the desk is nothing but an empty suit.

Also, for more blind musical fun and useless right-wing thoughtfulness that you are DEFINITELY free to disagree with, visit my blog.

oh and visit http://monitorduty.com for comics fun and an economics lesson regarding the Nintendo Wii.

oh--Davidson Peterson! I hadn't even paid attention to the name. Well, ignore what I said, I was thinking this was someone worth talking to.

Last time I recall hearing from nitwit he was posing stuff like "Ys, ppl CN gnr m. dn't xpct vryn t lstn, jst s lng s plnt sd n sm f th rdrs' mnds s t hw ttlly gtstcl t s t hv wblg whlly ddctd t n mn, nd hw dsgstng t s t hv mntl mdgt fns bzzng bt hm, lk drns rnd qn b."

Now he's finally figured out how to post from the public library and get his vowels back...and after all those weeks of mulling it over we get "My God, do you ever need to get a life." ironic and sad, all at once.

Christine--amazing story. I agree with the commentator who said "The only way this man will stop driving is when he hits a brick wall or a politicians kid"

I do like the fact that the judges keep suspending the license he doesn't even have.

Maybe the guy really just likes being in court.

Okay, for all those hanging on to find out what happened, I tried. Both to teach her and to find her in the least bit interesting. Part of the problem was I'd just been dumped, my ex-girlfriend worked with us, so I was convinced that it was all something the PDBFH had set up to make me look stupid. Of course, all this time, while suspecting her, I was thinking of ways to get back WITH her. To say I was a refugee from a John Hughes flick wouldn't really be reaching. as for the Indigo Girls, while I never saw a guitar pick, she DID tend to wear blue....

Speaking of blue, Blue Spider, first off, don't be blue. Santa's going to come soon and bring you a web design supplies. MIGHT not be the kind of web you need, but, hey, it's a start! Anyway, you point out the big problem. It really all is about name recognition. Clinton has the built-in familiarity that someone like Richardson doesn't. What's he known for? Heck, what's his STATE known for? Something crashing in '47 and wierdos like me flocking there. If he does well enough, you KNOW that's gonna come up.

But I assume he is being upfront when he states that he doesn't care so much about how the near future's history judges him.

If you overlook that Bush ordered Rove and Meiers to ignore congressional subpoenas, sure.

Governor Bill Richardson is the Democrat Party candidate most qualified to be President. he is also one of the least popular and probably is the least famous.

Maybe it's because he spends too much time currying the cockfight vote, by waiting until after his reelection to enforce New Mexico's ban on cockfighting.

You thought Playboy's Dental-hygienist Bisexuals From Haiti were trying to make you looks stupid? Perhaps you were letting the ganja do to much of the t'inking for you, mon.

"My God, do you ever need to get a life."

Said the pot to the kettle.