Friday, January 11, 2008

What Would I Do Without Someone Telling Me How To Vote?


Thank goodness that someone so much smarter than I am is here to set me straight. Lawrence O'Donnell has just informed me that the candidate who comes the closest to representing my views is a loser, and I shoud not vote for him.


By voting for my candidate, John Edwards, I am subverting the democratic process and depriving Hillary or Obama of a vote that is rightfully theirs. After all, it's really a two-horse race. Everybody says so. It's two 'historic' candidates. And they 'deserve a one-on-one contest.'

What is this? ESP-fucking-N?

Time for the white guy to get out of the way? Make way for the Thrilla In Manila?

Just one more reason for me to hate the media.

Well, Larry, you've just convinced me - to send some more money (that I don't have) to John Edwards.


Distributorcap said...

the media --- likes it black and white --- makes it MUCH easier for them to not have to do too much work

black and white, red or blue, war or peace, taxes or no taxes, you get my drift

we have become a nation that cannot or will not think --- all we do is choose -- and O'donnell (whom i used to like) is just another one of them

tweety is the worst -- the worst when it comes to the theatre of it all......

nu sadly most of america sits back with its popcorn and watches the latest peril of pauline - will she get rescued - stayed tuned, tweety or larry or cokie will tell us....

oh alicia, the stories i will tell one day when i retire or am unemployed

Alicia Morgan said...

I hope you will tell them to me ;-D

Distributorcap said...

you bet i will.......

you can write a book
oh you are already!


working at a giant media company is sure interesting in these days....

Jolly Roger said...

The Chimpromised MSM is doing everything it can to tamp down any enthusiasm it detects for either Edwards or Huck, which should bother Hill and Barack supporters mightily.

Yeah. They see Huck as a greater threat to their interests than they see Hill or Barack as being. What should that be telling us?

Paul said...

The polls are usually though not always right nowadays - they know how to sample. And when someone is as far down in the polls as Edwards is, they're hardly ever wrong.

I don't see the same "spoiler" issue here, however, since it's all Democrats. What really hurts is when something happens like the Green Party putting out a candidate in a tight election when the two choices from the main parties, Bush and Gore, were light years apart. If the Green Party people hadn't had their own candidate, those votes going to Gore would have made a world of difference over these last seven years.

Of course the Greens had a right to do it. Didn't make it any better in terms of the real world effects.

Comrade Kevin said...

"Stand in the way of the black man?"

I wasn't aware that anyone of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or any minority status had some intrinsic right to the office by default. The implication in that statement is that somehow by being a) white and b) southern, Edwards connotes racism.

I think you're grasping at straws here, Mr. O'Donnell and forming ill-thought out conclusions. Edwards himself said he doesn't want the votes of those who wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black or Clinton because she's a woman.


Alicia Morgan said...

"Danger, Will Robinson!"

The Local Crank said...

John Edwards is the new Al Gore: despised by the MSM Punditocracy. And unlike Gore, who was the nominee after all, they can just complete edit Edwards out of their coverage.