• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Edwards says: "They want to shut me up"

Whoozyerdaddy

Whoozyerdaddy

Lifer
Linky to vid

How ironic coming from the guy who wants to eliminate the guys "who aren't serious candidates" from the debates.

Is it me or is he going a little bit "black helicopter" on that crowd. "Them, they, etc..."

It sounds like he's miffed about people making fun of his $1200 haircuts... that it's the only way he can get on the news. (Vast right wing conspiracy anyone?) Sorry Mr Ed. The problem is you lag in the polls behind a guy who isn't even running (does that make you not a serious candidate? Hmmm... ) and the press has adopted Hill and Obama as the inevitable winners. Everyone else is running for the poor and socialized medicine too so your 'message' is hardly original.

Go cry, emo kid.
 
Maybe we'd be better off if he did shut up. I didn't think he had much to say in 2004, and I don't see any improvement now.
 
Its all part of a disturbing trend that I now think is going to become a norm. Namely that the 2008 Presidential field are largely out of the starting gate, its too early to know which direction to run, and so they are milling around trying to figure out how to stand out in the vast herd of fellow candidates. And that to get attention now, the proven formula will be to start SLINGING MUD because the issues are not yet clear.

The trend is now started and soon its going to be a dog eat dog race to the bottom. And we see signs of the normal all republican attack democrats, all democrats attack all republicans, but the new trend seems to be the partisan fields also start to engage in cannibalism as each attacks their own in an effort to reduce the over population.

And Edwards is not the lone ranger here. Any rhetoric that gets attention will soon be the new battle cry as everyone bashes each other. Fifteen more months of this crapola to go.
Make sure you are well stocked up with barf bags because the mud slinging is just starting.

Its hard to win a beauty contest when covered in mud---but at least two people will.
 
He's the only person to take himself seriously as a candidate. He was a small player, not even up to VP status in 04 and he's no better now. He's simply wasting time and airwaves. His loss was a given. When he decided to run in this election only those living in loo-loo land felt he had any chance at all. He was the running VP on a guy who lost against Bush. That doesn't say much about him. I do remember him basically being given a wedgy and sent home crying to his mom after the debates with Cheney, though. He's a small fry, looks like he just got out of highschool and would immediately be drowning upon becoming president. He'd be overwhelmed from day one and a terrifically useless character in office.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
He's the only person to take himself seriously as a candidate. He was a small player, not even up to city councilman material (<---- fixed) in 04 and he's no better now. He's simply wasting time and airwaves. His loss was a given. When he decided to run in this election only those living in loo-loo land felt he had any chance at all. He was the running VP on a guy who lost against Bush. That doesn't say much about him. I do remember him basically being given a wedgy and sent home crying to his mom after the debates with Cheney, though. He's a small fry, looks like he just got out of highschool and would immediately be drowning upon becoming president. He'd be overwhelmed from day one and a terrifically useless character in office.
Click to expand...


Nice assesment of GWB, I agree.
 
In terms of Edwards, he was a very successful trial lawyer. And went from rags to riches precisely because he can relate to a jury. And he also knows how to do his homework.

He has spend the time since the 04 election mainly studying public policy issues. Right now he is somewhat outclassed in the democratic field by Obama and Hillary. But anyone who dismisses Edwards as a total lightweight may be forced to revise that position. If Obama and Hillary manage to take each other out or guess wrong, Edwards could well take advantage. And he will save the best for the middle or last. It sometimes pays to be underestimated.

Need I remind everyone that perhaps the most qualified President we ever had was a fellow named Hoover.
 
I couldnt ever vote for a politician that could say with a straight face that he worked as a high paid consultant at a hedge fund in order to learn about poverty.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I couldnt ever vote for a politician that could say with a straight face that he worked as a high paid consultant at a hedge fund in order to learn about poverty.
Click to expand...

And no doubt "endured" $1200 haircuts to see what the big fuss was all about :laugh:

Edwards is a complete political joke.
 
Originally posted by: daveshel
Maybe we'd be better off if he did shut up. I didn't think he had much to say in 2004, and I don't see any improvement now.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, he seems to be putting forth specific plans (beyond simple rhetoric like poverty is bad) much more than the other major candidates.

We'll see whether that strategy comes back to haunt him.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I couldnt ever vote for a politician that could say with a straight face that he worked as a high paid consultant at a hedge fund in order to learn about poverty.
Click to expand...

And no doubt "endured" $1200 haircuts to see what the big fuss was all about :laugh:

Edwards is a complete political joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Screw rich people! Having tons of money and then going and spending it! And no rich person should be able to say the word poverty! Cuz they don't know anything about anything, even if they once were poor. Only poor people should talk about how to fix poverty. And all rich people who are concerned about the poor should not buy expensive cars, houses or haircuts! They should live in hovels and walk everywhere barefoot. I love how if a rich person does something extravagant and still claims to be concerned about poverty that that makes them a hypocrite.

I think I'm fair about this. I don't judge Bush or Cheney for being rich, and I don't think they or their advocates would claim they don't care about the poor. Being rich is better than being poor, and if you get rich, you should enjoy it. Just because Edwards makes poverty his cause doesn't mean he should live like a pauper.

Since all the candidates range from well off to filthy rich, and don't talk much about poverty, I suppose you are looking for a candidate who cares about the poor but doesn't talk about them.

Find another talking point.

If you want to rank on Edwards, point out that his contention that there is no global war on terror makes him a very dangerous person to have as commander in chief.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I couldnt ever vote for a politician that could say with a straight face that he worked as a high paid consultant at a hedge fund in order to learn about poverty.
Click to expand...

And no doubt "endured" $1200 haircuts to see what the big fuss was all about :laugh:

Edwards is a complete political joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Screw rich people! Having tons of money and then going and spending it! And no rich person should be able to say the word poverty! Cuz they don't know anything about anything, even if they once were poor. Only poor people should talk about how to fix poverty. And all rich people who are concerned about the poor should not buy expensive cars, houses or haircuts! They should live in hovels and walk everywhere barefoot. I love how if a rich person does something extravagant and still claims to be concerned about poverty that that makes them a hypocrite.

I think I'm fair about this. I don't judge Bush or Cheney for being rich, and I don't think they or their advocates would claim they don't care about the poor. Being rich is better than being poor, and if you get rich, you should enjoy it. Just because Edwards makes poverty his cause doesn't mean he should live like a pauper.

Since all the candidates range from well off to filthy rich, and don't talk much about poverty, I suppose you are looking for a candidate who cares about the poor but doesn't talk about them.

Find another talking point.

If you want to rank on Edwards, point out that his contention that there is no global war on terror makes him a very dangerous person to have as commander in chief.
Click to expand...

Yup. He didn't have the greatest performance at the debate, but I thought this one of the better moments at the CNN Youtube debate:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I couldnt ever vote for a politician that could say with a straight face that he worked as a high paid consultant at a hedge fund in order to learn about poverty.
Click to expand...

And no doubt "endured" $1200 haircuts to see what the big fuss was all about :laugh:

Edwards is a complete political joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Screw rich people! Having tons of money and then going and spending it! And no rich person should be able to say the word poverty! Cuz they don't know anything about anything, even if they once were poor. Only poor people should talk about how to fix poverty. And all rich people who are concerned about the poor should not buy expensive cars, houses or haircuts! They should live in hovels and walk everywhere barefoot. I love how if a rich person does something extravagant and still claims to be concerned about poverty that that makes them a hypocrite.

I think I'm fair about this. I don't judge Bush or Cheney for being rich, and I don't think they or their advocates would claim they don't care about the poor. Being rich is better than being poor, and if you get rich, you should enjoy it. Just because Edwards makes poverty his cause doesn't mean he should live like a pauper.

Since all the candidates range from well off to filthy rich, and don't talk much about poverty, I suppose you are looking for a candidate who cares about the poor but doesn't talk about them.

Find another talking point.

If you want to rank on Edwards, point out that his contention that there is no global war on terror makes him a very dangerous person to have as commander in chief.
Click to expand...

Lets just ignore the poor and let them die off.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk


If you want to rank on Edwards, point out that his contention that there is no global war on terror makes him a very dangerous person to have as commander in chief.
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about someone who actually thinks there is a global war on terror. :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top