Can some famous idiot please insult my candidate so he can get the national media exposure?

He used to work for Clinton, after all, and he's not skinny.

You don't want the good governor to peak too soon, after all!!!!

. . . and drag Richardson into the muck over Iraq?

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48729/

his little problem soliciting a teenager for sex awhile back. He was very lucky, indeed, that he had a good lawyer, but that whole mess did nothing to enhance his stature as a commentator on ANY subject, save perhaps providing a cautionary lesson or two about not going into chat rooms to look for nubile young 16 year old girls. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/ritter.arrest/

I think Ritter's era has passed, myself. He's no longer in the game, and his perspective is that of someone in an armchair hectoring from the sidelines, not on the job.

lots of rational folks say he was set up, lots of his detractors still want to hang it on him.

And if you count his second wife, three times are the charm. He dumped his first wife for a young looking 19 year old. It was an issue, too, because of his high level of clearance and her foreign nationality...and the fact that she worked for the KGB. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/unscom101298c.htm

I don't want to get into a big imbroglio about the guy--he's yesterday's news anyway, and out of the loop, AFAIC. But in my opinion, he has a problem in that he has a preference for female teenagers who are barely legal, if even that, and he got lucky with a sympathetic prosecutor and a good lawyer. I am inclined to believe that he got preferential treatment because of who he was.

The reason he made noises about a 'smear' is because he made a deal with the prosecutor (who got in trouble subsequently and was fired, some say for giving him special treatment--but nobody knows for sure, and I haven't seen anything in print where she's talking). The 'smear' part isn't the fact that he DID it, it's the fact that the case was SEALED (I think they got the charge down to "child endangerment" but I don't know that for certain) and no one was supposed to know about it, but "somehow" it got out.

So in that sense, yes, he WAS 'smeared.' And it happened right before he was supposed to go on a trip to Baghdad. I don't doubt that some son of a bitch in the BushCo administration carefully, gleefully arranged for the news about the 16 year old, and another charge involving a 14 year old that happened previously, to get out in order to stop him from making that trip. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave THAT job to Scooter, too, frankly. It's the sort of dirty tricks he excels at--passing gossip, handing over juicy tidbits.

They had his weak link, and they waited, and boy oh boy, they used it. As they do.

So yes, he was 'smeared'--but the sticky problem in all of this is that the charges were also true. The 'smear' bit was that the details of a sealed plea deal were revealed solely to silence and marginalize him. But as I said, he DID do what he was charged with. If he were anyone other than who he was, he would have suffered public humiliation and perhaps worse contemporaneous with his court appearance. Instead, he suffered it later, when someone leaked the information.

Because of his iffy history with teen girls, I just don't think he's a good representative for the team, frankly, in an upcoming election year. We simply don't need guys who mess with teenagers cheerleading for the cause, when other, less problematic spokespersons who don't have that sort of baggage are available. I'd like to win the White House this time, and I just don't think he's a strong public face. If he wants to do background work with low publicity in friendly venues, fine, but the minute you put that guy front and center, it's ammo for the right to start bellowing for a rep from that MSNBC "Catch a Predator" series.

I'm not saying this to be mean, it's just my take. And I am often as not accurate about what stories have potential to grab the public's imagination. This would be fodder for the media grinder like crazy if we put this guy center stage. The issues would be obliterated with constant talking head takes about the guy's past.

Others can, and likely will, disagree with my assessment.

Link to the story, here: http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=1090744&nav=6uyNDSWw

I hope he does break through the shield of silence the media's got around him. I hate that, when a good candidate is disappeared in the media. I've been through it with my guy, Wes Clark, and it ain't fun.

when I was a kid we would get bored and call the cops on ourselves and let them chase us around our suburban neighborhood . . . I guess I really don't want any crap, just the coverage. He had a good run through Iowa, but there's just a handful of accounts. It's early, though.

He's better off shaking hands and meeting people. He doesn't NEED national media. Not at this stage, not at all.

Remember how Howard Dean came out of 'nowhere?' That wasn't nowhere. It was groundwork, legwork. And it happened over a long period of time.

No substitute for it. People like to be ASKED for their vote.

Early days, yet, indeed.

or being overtaken by events. She's neither. I am certain her staff has thought through all of the potential ups and downs, and realize this is a long road--which it is.

They've probably got a few things up their sleeve, yet.

Remember, once upon a time Gary Hart was unbeatable. So was Ed Muskie.

These things can turn on a damned dime. I'm sitting back and watching for now, and enjoying the view of an impressive field. All of our candidates have something to recommend them, even the likeable but No Chance In Hell Kucinich.

If Gore gets in, though, I'll throw down.

Any of them would be 180 degrees different and 1,000,0000% better than the current Resident.

I find some of the invective distressing. Talk about eating your own! But I'm with you--any one of our field is better than what we have now.

And when you think of it, we're not just electing the President, we're electing, indirectly, the Cabinet and the judges who will warm the benches across the land. And odds are good, Saints preserve Justice Stevens for as long as possible, we're electing a Supreme Court Justice or two, or three, as well.

We can't do any nose cutting to spite faces. It's just too serious a matter, in these times.

I am disappointed in Hillary for some of her votes. Obama for some of his, too. But I'm the big-picture type, and I know if I want to vote for the perfect candidate, I'll have to run myself.

so far, so good

talking Bill's way out of the rumors and accusations

I want them to attack my candidate too!

:patriot:

:patriot:

Unfortunately for him the media found out he was running at the same moment they found out he was dropping out.

know the guy.

except for the English only fiasco, which I have never understood. In spite of that, I voted for him.

conservatives?

All it accomplished was to empower the then biggest asshole in the state senate, now the biggest asshole in the US House--Steve King (asshole-IA). King built his congressional campaign on having gotten the bill passed. I have no idea why Vilsack thought it was worth signing.

http://www.state.ia.us/dhr/la/Old_website/Resources(new)/publications/July%2030,%202004.html

Hope that helps...I'm leaning towards him myself.

thanks :hi:

pro-nafta


nice guy, smart too. just turned...

:hi: