Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Funny how what was alright to do to Reps by the Clintons, is suddenly verboten when done to a fellow Dem. The naked lust for power that has always been evident, when not turned on the object of their visceral hatred, seems to suddenly be a bit much for the Clinton's long time enablers in the party and media. Gotta love it when what goes around, comes around.

[sailaway21]

Beezer,
And how shocked, yes shocked, they are to see it! Ostriches in America.

[camaraderie]

Just a little cheat sheet for those who are not following closely:
voting+aid.JPG

[RAGNAR]

hhh

[sailaway21]

Mark Steyn on the Bloomburg follies, why Rudy was a better film title, and the generally gloomy prospects for a horendous November.
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ne...republican-war

[sailaway21]

I've mentioned before why I think Bill C. is so energized about Hillary getting to the White House and, if you recall, it isn't because he thinks it's her turn in the barrel. Mr. K apparently agrees:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...NkZmRkY2RhYzQ=

[PBzeer]

The more I think about it, I find I prefer the "old days", before there where so many people to tell us what to think, and we actually had to think. That aside, Mr K is right on, although desperate seems more apt than energized.

[wind_magic]

One of my pet peeves with the process is the media's insatiable desire to make everything a two person race, their constant search for resolution to everything. Picking candidates is a process and people like Ron Paul and others are an important part of it. The media constantly rolls it's eyes and asks why people who "can't win" are still running .. (?) .. like, because they believe in what they're doing, that's why! Even if a candidate just gets 5% of the vote that means that 1 out of every 20 people who voted thought that what they were saying was important enough to vote for them, despite what everybody else might have thought about it, even though they knew their candidate didn't have a chance.

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

One of my pet peeves with the process is the media's insatiable desire to make everything a two person race, their constant search for resolution to everything. Picking candidates is a process and people like Ron Paul and others are an important part of it. The media constantly rolls it's eyes and asks why people who "can't win" are still running .. (?) .. like, because they believe in what they're doing, that's why! Even if a candidate just gets 5% of the vote that means that 1 out of every 20 people who voted thought that what they were saying was important enough to vote for them, despite what everybody else might have thought about it, even though they knew their candidate didn't have a chance.

No kidding - did you know we even have: a Green Party (an its no Martha Stewart Party Event)

Even more odd this party has:

At least 226 Greens in 28 states
and the District of Columbia
hold elected office as of June 2007

[sailaway21]

Windy makes an excellent point and, perhaps, explains my vote for Fred Thompson in a primary process he'd probably already lost. I am cognizant of the fact that most canidates do not achieve the presidency on their first try and that when they do, the recognition they amassed in their first effort pays dividends. How else to explain the McCain rebound?

Windy is also correct in that the media are more interested in the horse race than the individual horses. I suspect that this stems from their interest in only today's news versus the fact that an individual canidate might be actually saying something of interest.

To all of which I say, inform yourself on those issues and canidates of interest to you and do not offer a ride to the polls to that neighbor who does not do the same. (g)