I will never be able to fully cleanse my memory banks of the fact that Ralph Nader was actually more responsible for George W. Bush becoming President of the United States than all the forces of conspiratorial corruption combined. To briefly refresh your memories, the final Florida certified vote count showed Bush defeating Al Gore by a paper thin 537 votes out of a total of nearly six million cast. The historians will be debating all the questionable scenarios of what took place long after everyone alive today is no more. One fact, however, they won't need to debate, was that Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader received 97, 421 votes or 1.633% of all votes cast. I feel quite certain that had Nader not been on the Florida ballot, the nearly one hundred thousand people that did vote for him, would not have selected Bush as their second choice. It's my contention that a lot of those voters would not have cast ballots at all. But of those who would have, who could reasonably argue that Gore would have not been named by a larger than a 537 vote margin and therefore George W. Bush could have continued his life as an obscure, illiterate alcoholic in that festering buttcrack of a town known as Crawford, Texas.
I sincerely hope that the antithesis of George W. Bush, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, is not morphing into the Ralph Nader of 2008. I genuinely wish the Edwards campaign could catch fire and propel him into the democratic nomination for president. But I'm sad to report the only fire currently burning is Edwards' presidential aspirations going up in smoke. If I could only figure out why Edwards doesn't resonate better with voters, I'd contact his campaign staff and tell them right now. But whereas many people are simple, the reasons for why they think the way they do are not. I don't think one particular factor turns off the majority of voters. But the combined effects of being a wealthy trial lawyer, a failed national candidate from four years ago, the nonsensical label of a hypocrite fighting for the poor while living in a spacious mansion, a recipient of $400 haircuts and the fact he doesn't seem to pass the essential "beer drinking" test, causes him more to the outside looking in category than the inside looking out position. Whatever the reason, it's just not working out for him.
It's his dogged determination of trying to get that one last drink after last call has come and gone that's causing many of us an unfavorable flashback to 2000. Edwards does have a base of 15% to 20% of supporters in virtually every state. These loyal supporters will undoubtedly stay with Edwards as long as he is willing to fight on, but in a process that allows for only one winner, his determination can only benefit one person and unfortunately that one person happens to be Crybaby McPantsuit. Unless you're an 85 year old woman, an individual longing for the good old 90's, a sucker for a crying woman, a female version of Rudy Giuliani or someone who boasts 35 years of experience being married to an Arkansas hound dog, Hillary holds no appeal. She has somehow managed to believe it's her unalienable right or destiny to become president. There is no level she will not sink, no mud she will not throw or no fence she will not straddle in order to appeal to just enough people to get her polyester ass back in the White House saddle again.
By Edwards futilely remaining in the race, he causes the majority of the democratic voters in this country to split their votes between Obama and himself, while Hillary moves on. I don't discount that a certain percentage of Edwards loyalists would vote for Hillary if Edwards withdraws, but much like 2000, the majority of Edwards support would go to Obama rather than Clinton. This will effectually mean the difference of who the democratic nominee on the November ballot is. The republican party is completely fractured as this article goes to press. I guarantee you, however, that nothing will galvanize and organize these lost souls more than Hillary Clinton on their ballot. Imagine if you will President(s) John McCain, Willard "Mitt" Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee and first lady, Chuck Norris being your leader. Just the thought of that makes me want to eat a crack and heroin sandwich on whole wheat toast.
If Democrats, libertarians, humanitarians and possessors of IQs larger than their combined shoe and hat sizes do not want to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and regain its pride by first regaining its sanity, take a closer look at Barack Obama. Nobody is experienced doing everything before they've done anything. Hillary was the wife of a president. I know a guy whose wife is an eye doctor. Would you feel confident visiting the guy based solely on his experience as a spouse? Bright people like Obama surround themselves with bright people who offer their ideas rather than their opinions. If you had a major problem in your life would you rather seek the counsel of a trusted friend who will give you the information you need or some stooge who will give you the information you want?
Robert F. Kennedy once said "some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not." Since I'm quoting Kennedys, Robert had a brother named John, who told a people looking for a new beginning nearly 50 years ago to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country." So Senator Edwards and everybody else, dream about what you can do to make the United States everything it can be. I'm voting for Barack Obama, anyone out there who wants to join me is more than welcome to come along for the ride.....
I sincerely hope that the antithesis of George W. Bush, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, is not morphing into the Ralph Nader of 2008. I genuinely wish the Edwards campaign could catch fire and propel him into the democratic nomination for president. But I'm sad to report the only fire currently burning is Edwards' presidential aspirations going up in smoke. If I could only figure out why Edwards doesn't resonate better with voters, I'd contact his campaign staff and tell them right now. But whereas many people are simple, the reasons for why they think the way they do are not. I don't think one particular factor turns off the majority of voters. But the combined effects of being a wealthy trial lawyer, a failed national candidate from four years ago, the nonsensical label of a hypocrite fighting for the poor while living in a spacious mansion, a recipient of $400 haircuts and the fact he doesn't seem to pass the essential "beer drinking" test, causes him more to the outside looking in category than the inside looking out position. Whatever the reason, it's just not working out for him.
It's his dogged determination of trying to get that one last drink after last call has come and gone that's causing many of us an unfavorable flashback to 2000. Edwards does have a base of 15% to 20% of supporters in virtually every state. These loyal supporters will undoubtedly stay with Edwards as long as he is willing to fight on, but in a process that allows for only one winner, his determination can only benefit one person and unfortunately that one person happens to be Crybaby McPantsuit. Unless you're an 85 year old woman, an individual longing for the good old 90's, a sucker for a crying woman, a female version of Rudy Giuliani or someone who boasts 35 years of experience being married to an Arkansas hound dog, Hillary holds no appeal. She has somehow managed to believe it's her unalienable right or destiny to become president. There is no level she will not sink, no mud she will not throw or no fence she will not straddle in order to appeal to just enough people to get her polyester ass back in the White House saddle again.
By Edwards futilely remaining in the race, he causes the majority of the democratic voters in this country to split their votes between Obama and himself, while Hillary moves on. I don't discount that a certain percentage of Edwards loyalists would vote for Hillary if Edwards withdraws, but much like 2000, the majority of Edwards support would go to Obama rather than Clinton. This will effectually mean the difference of who the democratic nominee on the November ballot is. The republican party is completely fractured as this article goes to press. I guarantee you, however, that nothing will galvanize and organize these lost souls more than Hillary Clinton on their ballot. Imagine if you will President(s) John McCain, Willard "Mitt" Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee and first lady, Chuck Norris being your leader. Just the thought of that makes me want to eat a crack and heroin sandwich on whole wheat toast.
If Democrats, libertarians, humanitarians and possessors of IQs larger than their combined shoe and hat sizes do not want to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and regain its pride by first regaining its sanity, take a closer look at Barack Obama. Nobody is experienced doing everything before they've done anything. Hillary was the wife of a president. I know a guy whose wife is an eye doctor. Would you feel confident visiting the guy based solely on his experience as a spouse? Bright people like Obama surround themselves with bright people who offer their ideas rather than their opinions. If you had a major problem in your life would you rather seek the counsel of a trusted friend who will give you the information you need or some stooge who will give you the information you want?
Robert F. Kennedy once said "some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not." Since I'm quoting Kennedys, Robert had a brother named John, who told a people looking for a new beginning nearly 50 years ago to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country." So Senator Edwards and everybody else, dream about what you can do to make the United States everything it can be. I'm voting for Barack Obama, anyone out there who wants to join me is more than welcome to come along for the ride.....
<
No comments:
Post a Comment