At least with two you can make nice and do rock-paper-scissors for who gets Prez and who VP. With 4 you may end up with something like the McCain/Huckabee people hitting the Romney/Rudy people over the head with their funny signs. Can't wait!

Since we're going to vote for candidates based on their names rather than policies/plans lets try this. If any are silly or sound funny, we can't vote for them. Fill in the blanks:

_________Flintstone

_________McDonald

Excuse me, I need to go to the ____________

________ the red nose reindeer.

I'm hungry, let's go to _______________.

Bonus: What candidates real name is the same as a monsterous people eating rat?

Obviously if names matter, we're going to have to redline the entire republican field. Tough break. Better luck in 2012, EM.

Of course the other problem is those of us who are sneaking a peak at work with computers that lack sound cards. A transcript is not always necessary but a clue about what he was talking about would be nice.

it should be eliminated by the fact that Giuliani is still considered a serious candidate (or was ever considered "inevitable"). Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, more than any voters in this country, are keeping Rudy in the debates and in the headlines.

That being said, I hope Rudy kicks butt in Florida, a winner take all primary, because I really, really, really want to see the republicans go into super Tuesday with 4 "strong" candidates, all of whom consider themselves frontrunners. I'm stocking up on popcorn and merlot for the evening.

that these are not so much lies as mistakes in judgement/conclusion. So that would leave gross incompetence,eh?

is the change by FOX as to which ass they are kissing at the moment. Apparently Ailes and Murdoch have decided that Giuliani is now a sucker bet and have decided to throw him under the straight talk express.

Obama-Edwards works for me, too. We don't get to vote in our primary (Texas) until March. Because of the f-d up electoral college, my vote pretty much doesn't count in the general election. But usually by the time of our primary, we are just annointing the leader so it doesn't count there, either. I actually may have the chance to cast a meaningful presidential-related vote for the first time in 30 years! Yee-hah!

Was set up by Eisenhower, an experienced 2 term president, and passed it on to Kennedy who didn't know a turd when he was handed one. As for "experience", I do believe Clinton (the first one I mean) was younger than Obama when he took office and, for all I know, may not have ever set foot in the Capitol except as a tourist. Rookies make rookie mistakes. Pros make pro mistakes. All politicians make political mistakes.

"Go away boy, you bother me."

Which is really fascinating for me. Our primary in in March by which time things are always settled. My november vote is meaningless because of the antique electoral college. I'm not really used to seeing anything from national democrats who pretty much haven't spent a dime here since the 60's. Fine, so the ads play in Florida...they play here, too. If that's what he wants to pay for.

And I thought the comment was funny. It's a screwed up DNC situation but it was screwed up early last year and that's the way it is. The fact that the Clintons (plural) said nothing as long as they thought she was the annointed one and are now stomping up and down about "disenfranchisement" is cheesy. And irritating. I'll vote (i.e. throw away my texas vote) for whoever gets it but Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama is looking better and better to me. Or maybe I'll figure out where I left my "Draft Gore" button...

Especially since he may be the next president. But buddy-buddy with Giuliani? Is McCain actually trying to go of his way to irritate me?

that when they try to put the fix in for the general election, they are as obvious as this. Missing electrons is a bit sticky to explain and prove. "We don't need no stinking vote counting" is something even joe six-pack can understand.

Krugman doesn't spend much time on the blogs reading the comments of Clinton supporters...

Or Ron Paul supporters...

Or Fred Thompson supporters...

Or...

People are passionate about their candidate. Some will "come in line" behind the eventual candidate, some won't. To say that Obama's people are in any way unique in establishing a "cult of personality" is silly and naieve.

So who is the mystery independant? Hagel? Lieberman? Bloomberg? Rove?

And agreed regarding use of the word petard: "I do not think it means what you think it means" Inigo Montoya.

And Bill's holdings? Are they all in cash, also? Really, a decent lawyer knows never to ask a question they don't know the answer to and never bring up anything that begs a follow up question.

Anonymous: Please use an indentifiable tag so we don't think all the rather rabid Clinton defense is from just one troll. Unless it IS all from one troll in which you can just say so or use Cythera or something like that..

If that is the best endorsement you can give your candidate, you need to get out of politics.

On the other hand, I think you just made it obviously clear you are a republican troll trying to get a little donkey on donkey fratricide going.

"how would posting some odd avatar like, say, "meffert" give you any insight to who I am."

Avatar? It's my name. Can't make it any less anonymous than that. (OK there are a few of us with this odd "avatar" of a name. I'm the jeffrey or jj one.) I take responsibility for my words and actions. Not always right, but I do my best. Don't be such a wuss, be identified, and make your words stand above the rest of the anonymice.