So now that Thompson is gone, and the HRC/Obama "lovefest"

is over, it has become a new ballgame.

First, with Thompson out, the leading conservative has left the building, the R's left are still a sorry lot, but someone will come in to try and fill those weatherbeaten boots...oh sorry, that was his face. Let's just say, it will get a little more interesting as each of the remaining R's move downward into the maelstrom that is GOP.

Now, few things about the D candidates, and particularly now that the "truce" is over, (like there ever was one, this is politics, not beanbag).

For one thing, with all of the junk coming out creating all of the recent havoc here and on other progressive sites, we should not be not be squawking about it, but welcoming it. I for one do not like negative political races, but I also see a strategic move of genius in all of this, whether intended or not. If our own candidates are splattering mud out there, it leaves the R's nothing to do, and this is a good thing! If our own candidates berate each other and cast aspersions upon one another, they take away a primary tool of the neo-con R's. The R's will have nothing to "surprise" the electorate with. It will already be out there, and in politics, like comedy and procreation, timing is everything.

I still have no candidate I will back at this point. I think the best one has left the stage, Richardson, but still, there is great opportunity out there, who will seize the moment and actually begin talking about issues, is anyone's guess, but this the Primary...(and a horridly long one), and the idea is to look for backers and cash, not crush the opposing party. (Which brings to mind the notion that there is not much more crushing to do, since bush/cheney have pretty well destroyed the the GOP anyway).

But, my dear friends, look at last nights "debate" in a positive light...each time this stuff comes out, before the R's have a chance to go for the throat, it takes away from them just one more poison dart, and that is really a good thing...:)

We vet them or they do. If we do it, they have a chance to know ahead of time (don't kid yourselves) and have time to gather their thoughts. Not scripted, just generic topics "leaked" from one camp to another.

This is a good thing.

In other words, the Repugs will be unable to attack the candidate for being insufficiently anti-war(!)or insufficiently anti-corporate(!) because it was already used in the primaries?
:rofl: Don't worry. They'll dredge up wagonloads of slime that we haven't even dreamed of.

You have to look at it from a strategic POV.

If all of the stuff comes out now, and I can't see why it shouldn't, just clear the air, the R's will be stuck w/nothing.

It has taken a long time to deal w/combating this stuff...the best way is to just roll it out there.

Back in the 18th Century, there was a huge outcry against Alexander Hamilton, he was a bastard, in the truest sense of the word; a womanizer and he was also pushing hard for a Federal Banking System that would set things straight, among other things. One of the cruelest, (at the time), smear campaigns rose up against him. What he did should be a lesson to every politician. He stated he was indeed a bastard, was a womanizer, and currently having an affair, and that his ideas about a Federal Banking System would work. Immediately, there were no more outcries, there was nothing the opposition could do...and Hamilton went on th become Secty of the Treasury, (and did a damn good job!).

You must realize that attention span of the average voter is less time than it takes to play the Super Bowl, and nothing gets more putrefied than old news. It just doesn't hold up.

but I don't see how any of this bickering is useful to the GOP, other than for amusement. Hillary and Obama are NOT ripping each other for not "supporting our troops" or being "strong on terror" or "tough on illegal immigrants" or "family values" or anything in their meager pile of horseshit "issues". What are they being denied? "....Hillary Clinton...her OWN PARTY accused her of (wait for it)...working for WAL-MART!...Hillary Clinton..(ominous music)..RIGHT FOR WAL-MART, WRONG for AMERICA!..." Would this kind of thing work for them?
I think it's a tad more likely that our nominee will be smeared with something of a little more resonance to the GOP and the so-called "swing-voters"...something like treason or bestiality.

As for the usual "soft on terror" stuff and the like...if the R's really are stupid enough to bring that up, think about the answer..."after 7+ years of the great "War on Terror", where is bin-Laden?"

Taxation?...why are we $9 trillion in debt?

Fiscal responsibility?.." " " " .

Cut spending?... " " " " .

Smaller Gov't?... under R rule, the Federal Govt grew at record a pace.


The silly Wal-Mart thing would have been great fodder for them, just as the whole "ambulance chaser" Edwards garbage. What Edwards should have said, immediately following that little slap, was that because of those law suits, the direct benefit to the citizens was that safer standards by companies, and through legislation, have helped protect citizens.

Like I said, the attention span is short, if the small things, the absurd things are taken out of play now, they have nothing. They can't use big ticket items, they are far too guilty of negligence already. All of the time and power they had, they wasted on flag burning amendments and anti-gay pseudo-legislation.

Each time we take a talking point away from them, they grow weaker...:)

Bawahahahah!


:rofl: