Amusing, really.  I came across this article on CNN.com, exploring why John Edwards’ affair was not pursued by the mainstream media.  Good question.  Last fall, the National Enquirer released this story.  But, really, did anyone follow up with this?  Doubtful.  Perhaps, they were a little too enamored with the Edwards candidacy to actually do their job.

What a disgrace and hypocrite this guy is.  Wife battling cancer and he is screwing around on her.  Utterly absurd the level of hypocrisy here.  Well, at least his character has been outed and the political career of this charlatan is over.

Tags: JonEdwards, Elizabeth Edwards

Share This

I am greatly amused when I watch the Democratic candidates for President squirm on the issue of same sex marriage.  Clearly, the country does not support same sex marriage.  The polls show that.  And, since they are Democrats, it is easy to box them into a corner and call them “whack-job” liberals.  So, after Dukakis, Mondale, among others… they don’t want to go down that road.

So, to keep from going down that road, they take positions that say pretty much nothing.  Here is what they said at the most recent debate … as well as what they really meant:

Hillary…

Asked what was at the heart of her opposition to same-sex marriage, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, “I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions.”

“It’s a personal position,” she said. “For me, we have made it very clear in our country that we believe in equality. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having.”

Translated… “for political purposes and to get elected, I am opposed to same-sex marriage… though I really believe in it.  Don’t worry.  After I am elected, I will have a change of heart - if politically feasible.”

Edwards…

John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and the Democratic Party’s 2004 vice-presidential nominee, offered an apology for a previous statement that his religious faith was at the heart of his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I shouldn’t have said that,” said Edwards, who has previously said he has struggled with his position. “I believe to my core in equality. My campaign for the presidency is about equality across the board.”

“All I can tell you is where I am today,” he said. “I do not support same-sex marriage.”

Translated… “Wow, I didn’t know this was going to cause such a huge uproar.  Politically, the country does not favor same-sex marriage… look, people, my hands are tied.  I can’t and don’t have any more explanation or justification why I believe what I believe.  There is no way in hell my flegling campaign will have any shot to continue - if I support this.  Come on!!!!”

Obama…

Sen. Barack Obama said his view is that “we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word ‘marriage,’ which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given couples.”

“My job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day-to-day basis for loving same-sex couples all across the country … are recognized and enforced,” he said.

Translated… “Don’t worry, people.  When I get elected, I will work around this whole “marriage” word and hope people won’t notice.  All I can tell you is that right now people are not in favor of same-sex marriage.  So, for me to admit what I really believe is death to my chances of beating this maniacal woman to my left.”

Behind each of their words lies an even greater meaning.  But, bottom line, their words are easy to decipher.  Yes, they oppose same-sex marriage… but, they really don’t want to;  they just know they have to.

Share This

There is a great article in Advertising Age, analyzing the impact of Michael Bloomberg on the Presidential race.  No doubt, his role will be substantial.  But, with Fred Thompson in this race, I believe that his role will more or less be “spoiler” for the Democrats than President.

From the get-go, let’s get this out of the way.  If he drops a billion into this race, he is a legitimate contender.  But, one thing Bloomberg lacks is a grassroots party structure that the major parties have.  It becomes difficult to build such grassroots support when he is not committed to any particular ideology.  You may be saying… well, what about Perot?

Yes, in 1992, Perot ended up with 18% of the popular vote.  However, his inability to build a strong grassroots network that reached into small towns throughout America (along with his overall insanity) was his undoing.

I do, however, believe that Bloomberg is a much stronger candidate than Perot.  And, if he blows a billion, he WILL win some states.  But, I truly believe that his candidacy will hurt Democrats more than Republicans… why?… you may ask.

Right now, Americans are (to put it mildly) disenchanted with the President.  And, no doubt, his absurdly low popularity will hurt Fred or any other Republican.  So, normally, people who wanted to vote the bums out would go to the Democrats.

But, let’s look at the other side… Hillary Clinton?  Does anyone really want to vote for her?  Barack?  Nice guy… no experience… too young…. and, that is about it for serious candidates (And, no, Edwards is not one.).  So, that leaves Bloomberg for Americans who are disenchanted with Bush.  And, of course, Fred will rally the Republican faithful.

Bloomberg in the race = a win for Fred and Republicans…. don’t you love how I am already giving this race to Fred and assuming he is the nominee?  Let’s be honest… who can hang with him in this race?

Share This

Volunteer Voters states that:

The question for me is: can he find hole in this race? Hillary Clinton is pretty well ensconced and Barack Obama has proved more effective than many might have thought. In the Republican Party, there is a large cross section of grassroots conservative looking for a hero.

The Left has their hero in Barack Obama and the establishment has Clinton and Edwards, where does Al Gore fit in? Are there enough of the establishment discontented with all three of the frontrunners and is there hole in the grassroots that Gore can fill?

I would say no. Al Gore’s entry would definitely shake up this race but his nomination would not be a slam dunk. Does Gore really want to take on the Clinton Machine on his right and battle a charismatic phenomenon on his left?

I have to agree.  I, personally, do not believe that there is a “hole” for Al in this race.  Here’s why… polls have shown that Democrats are, by and large, happy with their slate of candidates, while Republicans are unhappy - for the most part.

By getting in this race so late, Al is at a huge disadvantage - money-wise.  Now, if he had jumped in 3-4 months ago, I would say that Al would be the man to beat.  But, at this point, backers are committed, a lot of cash has already been distributed.  And, not only does Al have to convince people to vote for him, but he also has to convince them WHY they need to leave the candidates that they are already happy with.  This will prove to be a huge challenge for him.

At this point, if Al gets into this race, it hurts Hillary.  I feel that the left will, most certainly, gravitate toward Barack.  Hillary has become the candidate for moderates, along with Edwards.  And, without other choices, conservative Democrats will probably go with a mixture of Hillary and Edwards.  And, then, of course, the 1% of psycho Democrats who want to bring back the Mondale years will go with Biden.  Al cuts into the Hillary-Edwards demographic.  Hillary, Al, and Edwards would split their votes, paving the way for Obama.  It would be an interesting scenario.

Share This