403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

Nine Moons » Blog Archive : 2008 Presidential Hopefuls: My Thoughts So Far » 2008 Presidential Hopefuls: My Thoughts So Far

2008 Presidential Hopefuls: My Thoughts So Far

Rusty - April 3, 2007

I consider there to be five hopefuls: McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Clinton and Obama. Talk about darkhorses and underdogs should be reserved for the Final Four tournament, not presidential politics. Yeah, I know, it’s not fair that they have to raise so much money to even be a contender but that’s the reality that we’re living in so we’re not going to discuss that here.

First of all I have to mention that I’m neither Republican nor Democrat. Talk to me about an issue and I’ll tell you where I stand, but because I happen to agree with one Republican or Democrat views I’m certainly not going to accept the rest of their pre-packaged ideas. As a teenager when I was confronted with an issue I would first think, “what would the Republican view be?” and then assumed that position. Now it’s, “what do I think?” and then I don’t care what the Republican or Democrat position is.

On with the show:

I have no problems with Hillary at this point. I don’t know enough about her and her views to actually form an informed opinion (unless you consider my formative years full of hearing Hillary-bashing “informed”).

Similar to Hillary, I don’t know too much about Obama’s positions on issues. He’s pretty charasmatic, seems like a smart guy, but I kinda think of him as the Paris Hilton candidate, wondering what he’s done to get him in the powerful position that he’s in. I mean, everyone else has their hook (Hillary=Bill, experience in the White House, woman; McCain=experience, popular, war vet, already tried the presidential thing; Giuliani=America’s mayor, 9/11; Romney=Bain Capital, Olympics, Mass. health care/budget reform) Obama’s just seems to be that he’s black and charasmatic.

My least favorite of the five. I don’t know exactly why, perhaps it’s that he’s old and he’s been a politician for too long. Perhaps it’s that I kinda feel like since he’s tried once and failed (at the presidency), that I don’t want sloppy seconds (a la Nixon). Maybe it’s that I just don’t see him really changing the status quo, I mean he’s the whitest, oldest guy of the bunch. I don’t really know, I just don’t care much for the dude.

I hate the America’s mayor thing. And I hate that he’s basically running on the fame/recognition he gained from 9/11. And I hate that he’s a Yankees fan. That being said, I kinda like the guy. I like that he had a lot to do with the clean up of New York City, both the stripclubs and the mafia. He also seems like the kind of guy who will get stuff done. (It’s just too bad that our current Mayor Bloomberg isn’t running for president, I’d probably vote for him over any of these five…)

I’ve read more about Mitt than any of the other hopefuls combined, and this is likely because I’m interested in how the Mormon element plays out. I guess that’s more of a fascination with the way the media deals with the Mormon issue than how he does.

Upsides: 1) Homeboy is smart. The dude knows how to work the system, any system and make it work for him. Not only in Bain Capital but in campaign finance and the Olympics and Massachusetts budget/health care and whatever else he touches. I have more confidence in him than anyone else (by far) that he’ll get stuff done. 2) He’s an effective politician. Four words: Massachusetts universal health care. I’m sure there are problems with it, but the fact that he pulled that thing together with Ted Kennedy screams brilliant politics. Anyone else who has pulled that off while not raising taxes please step forward. Exaclty. 3) He just seems like a good man. We obviously share similar moral values, he’s sacrificed in his church service, shown fidelity in his marriage for decades, I just couldn’t imagine that he’d be the nexus of a scandal in his administration.

Downsides: 1) I don’t care much for his flipping on the abortion issue, his recent membership into the NRA and readjusted position on gay rights. Not that I am necessarily opposed to his new positions, I just think that these recent changes are opportunistic and not sincere. Yeah, I know it’s purely political, but I don’t like it. It might be that I just hate that abortion isn’t really a real issue anymore, that it’s only used as a wedge issue, trotted out only to divide people, not to actually get anything done. Roe vs. Wade is not going away any time soon. Same as a gay marriage amendment. So anyway, I don’t like that. 2) This isn’t really an issue with Mitt, but I’m not a fan of our religion being run through the ringer every time someone brings up his candidacy. It bugs the hell out of me that people think the fact that Mitt had polygamist ancestors or that he wears garments it will somehow influence his decisions in office. As if he’s been waiting this whole time, those things never having influenced his behavior before, but now that he’s president he’s going to become the prophet’s mercenary. The fact that any intellectual uses this argument baffles me.

So, those are my thoughts so far. They are subject to change (and most likely will) as I become more informed. But I’m in no big hurry to make a decision, I’ve got plenty of time.

What are your thoughts on the candidates?


  1. Hillary: She is your senator, and you dont know enough about her and her views to make an informed decision? I havent lived in NY for years and I still hate her for being a carpetbagger.

    Rudy: Good VP candidate, would pull NY’s electoral votes out from under Hillary in a race. Not a good Presidential candidate, too left wing for the Republican Party. Good thing is all his dirt is already out, no skeletons left in his closet. There is so little dirt left on this guy, they gotta go after his wife.

    Obama: Young and inexperienced, which around DC might be a good thing. Charismatic, smart. Needs to stake out some territory on the issues and run with it.

    McCain: Nope. War hero, experienced politician, worn out candidate. Its over, dude.

    Mitt: If a Republican Mormon can get elected in Mass by the same kind of people who keep electing Ted and Barney, then this guy is magic. He is also pretty, which helps on TV. Hasnt got a chance though, as his own party will take him down, just like they did to McCain.

    What that means is I see no compelling candidates so far, and that is no surprise. Why anyone would want that job is beyond me. Whoever goes in is going to be ground into political pulp in a matter of weeks. Its a no win situation.

    Comment by Kurt — April 4, 2007 @ 3:39 am

  2. Rusty,

    I wouldn’t count out John Edwards just yet. In New Hampshire he is within the error margin in the latest poll with Hilary and Obama.

    That said, no candidate impresses me like Obama does. Hilary is too establishment and supported the war originally. Same with John Edwards, though he is not as establishment as Hilary.

    On the Republican side, no candidate impresses me. They are all still way too supportive of the current administration and the war in Iraq. I wonder if Republicans realize just how poisonous both this administration and the war in Iraq are to the Republican party.

    Republicans ought to look carefully at the 2006 election results. No Democrat lost a seat he or she was up for reelection. There is something to say about that.

    Comment by Dan — April 4, 2007 @ 4:14 am

  3. I used to think that if the unelectable Senator Clinton were nominated, then the Republicans would think they could put up anyone and still win. So they would! It would be worse than Bush vs. Kerry. This would draw out an independent candidate an order of magnitude more credible than Ross Perot, someone who would get electoral votes and maybe win. That’s where billionaire Mayor Bloomberg comes in, the man so committed to party politics that he switched from Democratic to Republican since that was a simpler path to becoming mayor.

    However, none of the current Republican and Democratic frontrunners are half as unappealing as Bush and John Kerry were.

    Comment by John Mansfield — April 4, 2007 @ 5:03 am

  4. Kurt,
    You’re right, I should know more about my senator. The truth is that I’ve been tempted on many occasions to write her off because of what others have said about her but I’m not ready to do that until I do my own research. And at this point I’m too lazy to do my own research.

    You say that the GOP will take Mitt down, and you may be right. But my feeling is that either way it could be a good thing. If they take him down (presumably for his religion) then it exposes them to the bigots that they are, but if they vote him in then he could do a great job. Who knows, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

    It’s funny, I actually wrote a couple sentences about how I hate the fact that Mitt (and the other GOPers) are all still backing this war, but I must have erased them. So yes, I agree, I think it’s foolish for them to support it.

    I thought about Edwards but I just think at this point he doesn’t have the clout nor momentum. That could change of course.

    If Bloomberg were to run it would be as an independent. Or as New York Magazine says, the Purple Party. I’m not saying I would vote for him, but I’d definitely listen to what he had to say.

    I guess I have a thing for candidates who have actually done something in their past. That’s partly why at this point I can’t totally get behind Hillary or Obama, I don’t know what they (and they alone) have done.

    And yes, John, you’re exactly right, no matter what, this next election is going to be better, no matter who are the front-runners.

    Comment by Rusty — April 4, 2007 @ 6:39 am

  5. I can’t get excited about anybody. I hate both parties and all the candidates support their respective parties. I kind of want to see Romney win because he’s one of my people. Plus, it would be nice to have a real brain in the White House for once. Plus, I much prefer conservative justices, so I tend to favor Republicans over Democrats.

    I don’t have a problem with candidates who supported the war—most people in Washington supported the war—or with those who think we have a responsibility to continue our engagement there. It’s not at all obvious to me that the right thing to do is get out ASAP. Actually, I think we still have moral obligations there.

    Yesterday on NPR a senator from Wisconsin kept repeating over and over that the Democrats’ responsibility was to “end the war.” That strikes me as irresponsible. Ending the war is easy. We can end our participation in the war today, but our goal has to be to end the war responsibly, even if we’re resigned to the notion that we can’t “win” the war.

    The senator also kept on repeating the damned lie that everybody on both sides always tell, which is that the Democrat position is “what the American people want.” That had me literally cursing at the radio.

    I, too, find it super annoying that Giuliani has a chance because he happened to be the mayor on 9/11. If it wasn’t for that, he’d be dead in the water as a Republican candidate for the nomination. Most of what I read about him indicates that he’s a bit of scuzz, both personally and as an administrator.

    Something I read yesterday was a black mark against Clinton. She’s supporting knee-jerk legislation aimed at closing the wage gap between men and women. Either she’s unaware that the wage gap exists for reasons other than discrimination, or she’s trying to score points with the liberal base. Either way, it’s bad.

    Comment by Tom — April 4, 2007 @ 7:47 am

  6. I second John Edwards. John Kerry proved that when it comes down to it, Democrats are just as partisan as the Republicans. More than anything, they want to win this thing. I think Edwards has the experience and enough charisma to convince the established Dems that he can win it all.

    As far as the Republicans go, I admit I like to see the Christian Right squirm at the thought of choosing between two socially liberal candidates and a Mormon. Its great theatre and I’m looking forward to this upcoming election more than I am the Super Bowl or the World Series (unless the Mets are in it).

    Comment by cj douglass — April 4, 2007 @ 8:10 am

  7. Where’s Sean Penn when you need him?

    Every election year I find myself thinking the same thing I think during every season of American Idol: This is the best America has to offer?

    I wonder how long before someone sets up a “vote for the worst” presidential candidate website.

    Sanjaya in ’08!

    Comment by Susan M — April 4, 2007 @ 8:18 am

  8. Susan,
    The Idol analogy is great because the fact is, no, those aren’t the best singers America has to offer. They are the people who the producers of American Idol think will keep people watching the show.

    And, no, the major party candidates aren’t the best American has to offer. They’re who the party loyalists think will keep or put their party in power.

    Comment by Tom — April 4, 2007 @ 8:24 am

  9. A final run-off between Obama and Romney would be interesting.

    Comment by danithew — April 4, 2007 @ 8:53 am

  10. I’m a Democrat, and I’m a John Edwards fan. Hillary can win, but it will be ugly. Obama is the flavor of the month. The only other Democrat who could emerge is Gore, and I don’t think he’s going to get into the race. (Though I would definitely vote for him.)

    McCain is yesterday’s news, and his fundraising shows it. Giuliani’s only chance (and I hate to say this) is another major terrorist attack. He’s not likable and he has too much baggage — those of us who lived in New York City on Sept 10, 2001 remember that we were REALLY sick of this guy before 9/11.

    As for Mitt’s flips and flops — I think his true colors are now showing, for the most part. His NRA thing is pure pandering, but I think he’s always been more socially conservative than he’s admitted. The moderate image is something he had to cultivate in order to run for statewide office in liberal Massachusetts. But there is no doubt that he is skilled executive leader. And after eight years of unskilled executive leadership, that might carry him pretty far.

    Comment by Chris Williams — April 4, 2007 @ 9:11 am

  11. I agree with what Chris Williams is saying about Giulani – he had a very ugly public divorce that sickened everyone. Then suddenly he became a hero for his response to 9/11.

    I want to watch more of Obama before I decide whether he’s just the flavor of the month. I read a good part of his book and when I’ve seen him speak, I’m impressed with the way he presents himself and with what he has to say.

    Romney does pander. I’m a little bit concerned about the degree to which he is willing to say what it takes to win. Of course the fact that he is Mormon makes what he does and say a personal matter for us – I was impressed recently with how he handled some reporter questions, particularly the question about him being a Mormon and running for the presidency. I previously thought we might not have much to lose or gain from him running – but I think the opposite is true. The fact that everywhere he goes, that this topic comes up (of the feasibility of a Mormon running) is actually quite a big deal. It may ultimately demonstrate many things about the ability of the country to really accept us.

    Comment by danithew — April 4, 2007 @ 9:18 am

  12. You want a sleeper? How about Fred Thompson?

    Yes, that guy. I’m not saying I would vote for him, but I think he could make things very interesting.

    I am also surprised Condie Rice wasn’t propped up by the Rove-machine.

    Comment by Tim — April 4, 2007 @ 9:48 am

  13. I would much rather vote for Bloomberg than any of the others, even though I have a visceral dislike for the idea that elections can be bought. However, Bloomberg has proven himself to be so devoted to pragmatic solutions, and so immune to partisan pressures, that he has been a much better mayor than Giuliani, despite the latter’s considerable achievements.

    That said, I predicted over two years ago on M* that Obama would be the next president, and I will likely vote for him in the primary, absent the reappearance of Al Gore.

    Fred Thompson is an empty suit. Not quite as bad as George W., but support for him is a sign of desperation. I also consider it to be quite unfortunate since he seems to have squeezed aside a capable and realistic Republican, Chuck Hagel, (although his chances may not have been realistic in a degraded and cynical Republican party – he’d probably be better off as an independent).

    Comment by Bill — April 4, 2007 @ 10:49 am

  14. Hagel would be MUCH better off as an Independent. Republicans, especially ones here in Nebraska, aren’t too pleased with him. He may have trouble holding on to his senate seat here–which is unheard of in Nebraska.

    I do wish someone would come out of the wordwork as a viable, somewhat conservative, Independent candidate. I think it’s what the country wants. I’m surprised it didn’t happen last election considering more people were voting against Bush than for Kerry. People want another option.

    Comment by Tim — April 4, 2007 @ 10:57 am

  15. Take away all the glamour and star status and look for a well qualified candidate and you’ll find Bill Richardson, the current governor of New Mexico. He has been a congressman, a governor, Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy. NOBODY in the current field has that broad of a resume’. He may not be the sexiest candidate but he is the best qualified to lead us out of the quagmire we currently find ourselves in.

    Oh, and I forgot, he’s Hispanic!

    Comment by Lamonte — April 4, 2007 @ 11:01 am

  16. Actually a lot of the media buzz is saying that all 3 GOP frontrunners are running dying campaigns. All of them have problems.

    McCain is viewed by party faithful as a traitor for sponsoring campaign finance reform and undermining the GOP movement to get rid of the fillibuster by negotiating a truce. Plus he’s old. And yeah, he lost the last primary…

    Giulianni is a bit fruity for conservative tastes. He’s staunchly in favor of gun control, supports same sex unions, and is just generally too liberal to appeal to mainstreet conservatives. What’s kept him going thus far is some strong financial backing on Wall Street.

    Romney… It really doesn’t look like it’s about the Mormonism. Republicans are more concerned about how gushy he was about about gay rights and a woman’s right to choose, not just when running for Senate against Kennedy, but also when he was running for governor. Who is this guy really?

    So all three of the frontrunners are hard for a lot of conservatives to get excited about.

    Some are actually speculating that the final winner of the Republican primary will be -

    Newt Gingrich.

    The guy already has name recognition and iron-clad conservative credentials. Some insiders are speculating that once the Romney-McCain-Giulianni campaigns fizzle, Gingrich will be perfectly positioned to jump in and build enough quick interest to win it.

    For me, it’s anyone’s race right now. Clinton, Obama, Edwards… I could go with any of them, honestly. McCain, Romney, Giulianni… same story.

    I don’t care who wins this one honestly. But it does look to be an interesting election year. Which is great for political junkies like me.

    Comment by Seth R. — April 4, 2007 @ 11:23 am

  17. 15 — Bill Richardson

    I love him. I don’t think he has a prayer. Sad to say, but he’s way to sloppy for the media age.

    Comment by Chris Williams — April 4, 2007 @ 11:52 am

  18. The field is white already to harvest.

    Many people expect a Fred Thompson/Al Gore/Newt to step in once the nation becomes sick of this early, overblown, and inflated election cycle, and offer to save their respective party from the brink.

    Newt is too polarizing a figure, and he has a lot of baggage (negative name association). He is the only conservative who can articulate well (and consistently) a conservative agenda. But, his positives will not outweigh his negatives.

    Fred Thompson shows that there truly is a vacuum that needs to be filled in the GOP primary. But, other than having an awesome voice and being in DieHard…he really doesn’t bring that much to the table (other than the Republican desire to have a rock star/movie star in their ranks).

    Al Gore…he is going to run, thus becoming the Ross Perot for the Dems. He splits the Hillary! votes and Obama benefits. Obama is acting like a very polished politician, and has out maneuvered (and pretty darn close to out fund-raise) HRC. She’s in trouble.

    Edwards: I laughed out loud when I read that someone was supporting him for his experience. I am from NC, did law school there, and he is worshipped as THE god of NC Torts…but that’s it. He was a one-term senator who would have lost his seat had he run again instead of vying for Pres/VP positions. He’s a trial lawyer. That’s enough negative for me right there.

    Comment by Hayes — April 4, 2007 @ 12:04 pm

  19. Seth,

    How can you be a political junkie and not care who wins?

    Comment by Jacob J — April 4, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

  20. In the same way a football fan can enjoy a Superbowl while not caring who wins.

    Comment by Tom — April 4, 2007 @ 12:41 pm

  21. Irrevelancy alert:

    Former Wisconsin republican governor Tommy Thompson just announced his candidacy.

    I don’t think Newt Gingrich is the GOP savior either – too many video tapes exist of him saying really stupid things. He would be better advised to play some kind of Karl Rove-like role.

    Comment by Bill — April 4, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

  22. Hayes,
    Ofcourse I was saying he had experience in relation to HRC and Obama.

    Comment by cj douglass — April 4, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

  23. I’m with JJ, the winner of the election could decide whether or not we are in Iraq till 2010 or 2020. Is Seth saying he doesn’t care about that?

    Comment by cj douglass — April 4, 2007 @ 1:46 pm

  24. You have to admit, a Gingrich vs. Hillary election would be extremely fun to watch.

    Comment by Tim J. — April 4, 2007 @ 1:57 pm

  25. Speaking of Fred Thompson, how about Sam Waterston for Pres?

    Comment by cj douglass — April 4, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

  26. Jacob, any of the candidates would be an improvement over Bush.

    Comment by Seth R. — April 4, 2007 @ 8:29 pm

  27. I can’t imagine a situation in which the Republicans aren’t pretty much just screwed. A candidate can’t revile Bush and get the Republican nomination, but without distancing him/herself from Bush, the candidate probably can’t win the support of the majority of the nation. It’s a bit d*mned if you do, d*mned it you don’t for them and I don’t think any of the frontrunners have what it takes to play the line like the Republicans are going to have to do.
    So… unless something major changes, it looks like the race for the Democratic nomination is probably the race for the White House.

    Comment by Meg — April 4, 2007 @ 9:56 pm

  28. Rusty, I am shocked, simply shocked, that you dont know more about me, after all, I am all there is to talk about in NY politics.

    Comment by Hillary — April 5, 2007 @ 4:12 am

  29. Recently Romney said he was a lifelong hunter. When pressed on the issue he admitted he had hunted once 40 years ago, and once last year.

    Oh Mitt, it doesn’t matter if you’re LDS, you’re no better than the rest of them.

    I like Obama’s books, but wonder if he’s lacking experience. Of course after an administration full of lifelong politicians, I kind of welcome a leader that wasn’t raised in a political family, who hopefully has a new perspective on things.

    Hillary, no. Edwards, maybe. Gore, probably. Thompson, no. McCain, Hell no. Guiliani, meh.

    Comment by jjohnsen — April 5, 2007 @ 7:46 pm

  30. Rusty,
    Though I fing this topic highly fascinating, I’m a little confused as to why it’s on a gospel topics blog.
    Or does this have to do with buying refurbished electronics? If so, sorry.

    Comment by Bret — April 5, 2007 @ 8:34 pm

  31. Having said that, I also don’t know enough about each candidate but from what I’ve gathered:
    Hillary–No thanks. Every statement and move she makes has been made for her candidicy.
    Edwards–Yeah sure, whatever.
    Obama–I’ve liked him since long before he began being considered for running. Though I he needs to put out some actual opinions on what his plans are for the country before I could get behind him.
    Guiliani–Meh, I’m with everything most everyone said about him here.
    McCain–HELLO!? His name is CAIN for crying out loud!
    Romney–With Rusty’s opinion, though I’m not too fond of this recent NRA charade.

    Comment by Bret — April 5, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

  32. Poor Romney. Now he’s trying to say that he’s always hunted “varmints”. Romney needs to get comfortable with who he is, a slick, wealthy, deal-maker who has nothing in common with rural Southerners. Pretending to be a hunter is sort of like Dukakis in the tank: not believable. Why doesn’t he realize that the country doesn’t need or want another buffoon who wears cowboy boots and clears brush and makes up stupid nicknames for everyone. Famous hunters like Cheney and Scalia are not popular with the American people these days (nor with real hunters who would disdain the game preserves these “gentlemen” frequent). He should stick to “competence” and forget about these trivial culture questions that are just traps for him. Of course, I’m of the opinion that the last thing we need is another MBA president.

    Comment by Bill — April 5, 2007 @ 8:55 pm

  33. “Talk about darkhorses and underdogs should be reserved for the Final Four tournament, not presidential politics. Yeah, I know, it’s not fair that they have to raise so much money to even be a contender but that’s the reality that we’re living in so we’re not going to discuss that here.”

    We’re talking in 2007. This is exactly when we should be talking about dark horses. 2008 is the most wide-open presidential race in several *decades*. Money doesn’t guarantee anyone anything. Three considerations:

    –Where was Bill Clinton in March 1991? John Kerry in March 2003? Those were the last two nominees from a wide-open fields (no VP candidate and no son-of-a-president thing in their favor), and both came from behind. In Clinton’s case he was in no better shape than Bill Richardson is now.

    –California is moving up its primary. This may increase money advantages, but it also makes the race a more wide-open contest. Connections with state party figures–made early on–are not going to matter as much in CA as they do in NH.

    –We’re citizens, not gamblers at a horse race. Isn’t there any period during which we can talk about candidate’s qualities, regardless of current speculation on their chances, fundraising totals, etc.? For people deciding whether to invest a lot of time or money to devote to a particular campaign, the herd mentality may make some sense. But for ordinary citizens just *talking* about who they like best, it seems very strange to me.

    Comment by Jeremiah J. — April 6, 2007 @ 12:36 am

  34. Sorry, my characterization of Clinton in March 1991 is I think incorrect. He had to comeback from a poor Iowa showing and a scandal before the NH primary, but he was considered a frontrunner in 1991.

    Comment by Jeremiah J. — April 6, 2007 @ 12:42 am

  35. “Mr. Richardson… you’re no BIll Clinton”

    Comment by cj douglass — April 6, 2007 @ 5:42 am

  36. Why do I always have to be for the underdogs? I agree with the positive comments already made about Richardson. He’s as experienced as they come. I dread the thought of electing another president who has no background in foreign policy, while Richardson has sound experience both in that arena and in being the head of an executive branch of government.

    Of the candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning, I like Edwards a lot. I also recently read Obama’s book, which he actually wrote, and I could easily see myself supporting him. I don’t care for Clinton, but I can’t tell you why other than that she’s a lousy speaker. But I’d vote for her over any Republican currently in the field.

    As to Romney: I’ve watched him on TV, and as a person I like him. He doesn’t have the arrogant air of George Bush, and he comes across as more of a listener than the other GOP candidates. He’s politically too conservative for my tastes, though, and his pandering bothers me.

    Comment by Copedi — April 6, 2007 @ 7:30 am

  37. @Copedi

    I think Richardson exagerrated his minor league baseball career.

    Comment by John Williams — April 6, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

  38. Came late to this, and nobody will read my comment, but . . .

    A lot of New Yorkers may indeed have been sick of Giuliani in summer 2001, but some of us remembered what the city had been like before him, and so, to paraphrase John Foster Dulles: he may have been a son of a b****, but he was our son of a b****.

    Look at the change in city budget, crime, quality of life (graffiti, panhandlers, window-washers/extortioners, hookers on 11th avenue, strip joints everywhere), etc. etc. and a lot of us would have voted to reelect Giuliani over say Mark Green or someone of his ilk who for all that appears would have brought back the great years under Dinkins.

    Still, that doesn’t translate into supporting him for President, in my book.

    Clinton: Too many Bushes and Clintons already. Didn’t we fight the Brits to get rid of hereditary monarchy? A two-term Hillary would mean two families had run the WH for 28 years. To paraphrase Cromwell, Gentlemen [and ladies], you have been here altogether too long. In the name of God, go.

    Romney: What on earth is wrong with you? The hunter thing makes you sound like blowhard Al Gore inventing the internet. You’re not a good ol’ boy (thank goodness for that!)–you grew up on the wealthy side of the tracks outside Detroit and you’ve lived in Belmont Mass–not Southie and not Brookfield or North Adams. Don’t try to pretend that you drag out the old squirrel rifle on weekends and go out shooting varmints.

    Comment by Mark B. — April 12, 2007 @ 7:43 am

  39. Mark B,
    So who you got in ’08? Obama, Edwards, McCain, Richardson, Perot? You can’t just leave us hangin like that.

    Comment by cj douglass — April 12, 2007 @ 9:30 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI