pageok
pageok
pageok
A Very Funny Column

from Dahlia Lithwick in Slate (hat tip: InstaPundit).

TRex (mail):
...as I sheepishly conceal my iphone....
2.16.2008 12:10am
Cornellian (mail):
I suppose he still has time to implode, Howard Dean style, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Hilary is lucky, but she's not that lucky.
2.16.2008 12:57am
Dave N (mail):
It reminded be of this satirical ad that Rush Limbaugh used on his show today. Same general theme.
2.16.2008 2:41am
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
Here's a straightforward question to which I don't know the answer, after reading her piece (which, I agree, is funny regardless of the answer):

If casting a vote tomorrow, would young, hip, cynical Lithwick vote for Obama or Clinton?

Because the implicit answer is supposed to be Clinton, right? But could anyone as smart as Dahlia Lithwick actually be making a pro-Hillary argument through an article that makes herself (the author) seem so incredibly unattractive?

The Dahlia Lithwick that this piece seems to me to leave exposed is vastly more vacant that I would ever have dared presume, certainly more than I would have ever argued in a blog post disagreeing with her on SCOTUS nominees or whatever. So it therefore must be a farce, right? She's really, actually, still for Obama, despite the subtitle?

Sigh. All too meta for me. I'd rather argue about penumbras to the Fourteenth Amendment, where I feel on comparatively firm ground.
2.16.2008 2:59am
SavetheOwls:
Vote Ron Paul.
2.16.2008 3:13am
Oren:
Yes, please throw your vote away.
2.16.2008 3:57am
Kovarsky (mail):
Bill,

I think it's pretty clear that she thinks the latest obama "critiques" (cultish, too inspirational) are a little silly. That being said, I don't know how she would actually vote.
2.16.2008 4:45am
Curt Fischer:
Bill Dyer: would young, hip, cynical Lithwick vote for Obama or Clinton?

Kovarsky: I don't know how she would actually vote.


It may very well be that Dahlia won't be voting at all, and, if she did vote, it might be fraud. That's 'cause, at least according to Wikipedia, Dahlia is Canadian.
2.16.2008 8:53am
Houston Lawyer:
With Hillary out of the way will the Democrats discover that Obama is the Oakland of polititians, that there is no "there" there? Some buyer's remorse is inevitable.
2.16.2008 9:04am
wuzzagrunt (mail):
Cornellian wrote:

I suppose he still has time to implode, Howard Dean style, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Hilary is lucky, but she's not that lucky.

I doubt he will spontaneously self destruct. I believe his political demise would be more along the lines of the "dead girl or a live boy" type revelation. It's the Clintons, after all.
2.16.2008 9:38am
Bender (mail):
Dave N. Thanks for the link. Wonderful satire!

McCain does not have the temperament or personality to be president. Clinton is morally and psychologically unfit for the office. And the only things we know about Obama are that he appears to have the temperament and personality that we hope to have in our head of state and chief executive.

But on almost all (if not all) the issues where Obama stakes out a position (or sort of, kind of, maybe stakes out a position) I disagree with him. What's a poor, conservative boy like me going to do on election day except (perhaps) not cast a vote for any of them as a symbolic protest.
2.16.2008 10:30am
Justin (mail):
I think this is fascinating for a whole different reason. Anyone who casually peruses conservative websites should notice that Obama has gone from a principled guy that they like (even if they disagree with), a perfect foil with which to compare and bash Clinton. But now that he's looking like the nominee, you see constant attacks, sneers, insults (that, depending on the website, tend to either play off his last or middle name), and what appears to be genuine and personal dislike.

It's amazing how the modern conservative movement, having pretty much ruined everything they've tried to touch, have based their psychological allegience by hating the other, rather than supporting their own ideals. I mean, look at the last election - John Kerry was turned into the antichrist, rather than any real support of George Bush and his ideals. It was *weird* for a midterm election, though also stunningly effective.

Oh, and sure, while Democrats certainly have no love for Bush or other Republicans, this certainly wasn't true until after Iraq (which was pretty polarizing) - and in any event, most Democrats now who support a candidate do so because they genuinely like that candidate, rather than based on sneering insults of Republicans.

I wonder if the conservative movement can demonize Obama enough so that the rank and file conservative hates him enough to vote for McCain out of the pure hatred that wins conservatives elections these days. My heart says no, but head is less sure.
2.16.2008 10:56am
Justin (mail):
PS - in fairness, this is more Glenn being Glenn than EV being EV.
2.16.2008 11:01am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
I know you probably consider yourself "above" all that nasty partisan politics, Justin, but you should really turn your critical eye on the Democrats before talking. "Not Bush" is pretty much all they've had for the last 6 years.
2.16.2008 11:32am
Justin (mail):
I'm not going to respond to any more comments, since I was just making a general observation and I'm sure no Obama hatin' conservative is going to agree with me, but my point wasn't that Republicans hate and Democrats don't, it was that Republicans hate *as* political strategy. Or in other words, Bush went to war, and caused Republicans to hate him. Obama is being hated for - being the likely Democratic nominee. That's....it. That's certainly the only thing that has changed in the last 60 days.
2.16.2008 11:50am
Justin (mail):
Errr, caused Democrats to hate him.
2.16.2008 11:54am
Richard A:
Anyone who casually peruses conservative websites should notice that Obama has gone from a principled guy that they like (even if they disagree with), a perfect foil with which to compare and bash Clinton. But now that he's looking like the nominee, you see constant attacks, sneers, insults (that, depending on the website, tend to either play off his last or middle name), and what appears to be genuine and personal dislike.

Hey, Justin buddy. You think you just discovered something new and that it's a conservative foible? Get some historical perspective, would you? It's called politics. It's been going on for centuries. It's like you just noticed that people eat food.
2.16.2008 12:01pm
JB:
I agree with Justin. From 2000-2004 I was a fairly generic Democrat. Up until the fall of 2002, we mainly mocked GWB for not being a terribly strong leader. The stock image of him was "My Pet Goat" on 9/11. We didn't hate him, we didn't even think Afghanistan was that bad of an idea. He had our support, just not our enthusiasm. We believed we would capture OBL right in time to win Bush the 2004 elections, and that the worst that would happen was some conservative Supreme Court justices. All in all, it didn't look that bad.

Once the drumbeat for Iraq started, then we started to hate him. For 720+ days, the vitriol that's now being directed against Obama was simply not there.
2.16.2008 12:04pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Yes, that's why my comment was limited to "for the past 6 years." It's also why the analogy to Justin's observation about obama is apt.
2.16.2008 12:12pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
Justin wrote:

...my point wasn't that Republicans hate and Democrats don't, it was that Republicans hate *as* political strategy. Or in other words, Bush went to war, and caused [Democrats] to hate him. Obama is being hated for - being the likely Democratic nominee.

Soooo.........Democrats hate--but only for really good reasons--but Republicans hate just to be hatin'? I guess it's true that, in Democrats, the Irony Bone has evolved into a purely vestigial structure. Too bad you couldn't have traded it for X-ray vision, or something equally useful.
2.16.2008 12:17pm
pete (mail) (www):

Oh, and sure, while Democrats certainly have no love for Bush or other Republicans, this certainly wasn't true until after Iraq (which was pretty polarizing)



Up until the fall of 2002, we mainly mocked GWB for not being a terribly strong leader.


I guess I must have imagined the Florida recount then and accusations from Democrats that he stole the election.

The selective amnesia here would go pretty well Adam Kolber's posts from a few days ago, but you are all a few days late for that.
2.16.2008 12:18pm
Toby:

Oh, and sure, while Democrats certainly have no love for Bush or other Republicans, this certainly wasn't true until after Iraq (which was pretty polarizing) - and in any event, most Democrats now who support a candidate do so because they genuinely like that candidate, rather than based on sneering insults of Republicans.

I do not know which planet you have been living on. Here in a liberal college town, all the walls were grafitied with "Fear Bush" in 1980. Clearly such nuanced argument is the epitome of reason.
2.16.2008 12:19pm
John McCall (mail):
It's called politics. It's been going on for centuries.

You're right, people have been assholes for centuries. And yet, somehow that is not a convincing argument that we shouldn't call them on being assholes today.

"Not Bush" is pretty much all they've had for the last 6 years.

To be fair, Bush has been a terrible president by essentially any standard, and most conservatives weren't willing to admit it until 2006. Of course, the Democrats have not provided us with many appealing options.
2.16.2008 12:30pm
Richard A:
John McCall-- "Call them on it" all you want. Call them on it 'till the cows come home. Then look back and notice all the time you wasted calling them on it. It's gone on for centuries. It will go on for centuries. It cannot be changed. Calling them on it is like trying to channel the dead. Now that is a convincing argument to stop pretending the phenomena is something important or noteworthy.
2.16.2008 12:57pm
juris_imprudent (mail):
Oh, and sure, while Democrats certainly have no love for Bush or other Republicans, this certainly wasn't true until after Iraq

Justin, were you in diapers when Gingrich was Speaker of the House?

I mean I thought the Golden Age of bipartisanship was at least pre-Nixon. /sarcasm
2.16.2008 1:09pm
juris_imprudent (mail):
Aside from snarking Justin, my other comment here is that the Dems seem to be worried about repeating what the Repubs did in 2000 - falling for a blank, but "electable" candidate. As has been noted elsewhere, this was brilliantly portrayed in The Candidate.
2.16.2008 1:12pm
John McCall (mail):
"Call them on it" all you want. Call them on it 'till the cows come home. Then look back and notice all the time you wasted calling them on it. It's gone on for centuries. It will go on for centuries. It cannot be changed. Calling them on it is like trying to channel the dead. Now that is a convincing argument to stop pretending the phenomena is something important or noteworthy.

Nonsense. You could equally well argue that we should refuse to prosecute murder because it's been a fact of life since Cain. The purpose of arguing with fools is not to convince the fools; it's to convince their audiences.
2.16.2008 1:17pm
Richard A:
The purpose of arguing with fools is not to convince the fools; it's to convince their audiences.

Justin's point was that Republicans have changed there tune about Obama since he became the front runner. Justin finds that somehow noteworthy. Did Justin believe Republicans would not oppose Obama? Or let's put it in your terms: Did Justin's AUDIENCE believe Republicans would not oppose Obama? I mean, the whole point is just worthless drivel. It's called politics. It's like Justin was pointing out that brick walls slow cars down when they hit them. Okay. Point?
2.16.2008 1:32pm
Montie:
Richard A says:

Justin's point was that Republicans have changed there tune about Obama since he became the front runner. Justin finds that somehow noteworthy. Did Justin believe Republicans would not oppose Obama? Or let's put it in your terms: Did Justin's AUDIENCE believe Republicans would not oppose Obama?


Bizarrely, I think the answer might be yes. And when Republicans don't come into the fold, I suspect that Justin's audience will take it as proof that Republicans are evil -- which will justify Democrats hatred of them.
2.16.2008 1:57pm
John McCall (mail):
Nice shift.

Do I think it's plausible that some people would be convinced by Justin pointing out that these supposed intellectuals have just happened to change their minds to fit the current political expediencies of the Republican Party? Sure. Obviously, no-one expects consistency from a partisan hack, which is why most pundits position themselves as independent ideologues; for people who've bought into Pundit 1's claims of ideological consistency, evidence that Pundit 1 really is just a partisan hack might be very convincing.
2.16.2008 2:21pm
alias:
Justin writes: I mean, look at the last election - John Kerry was turned into the antichrist, rather than any real support of George Bush and his ideals.

As I recall, the main part of John Kerry's platform was that he wasn't George Bush. Justin has some interesting observations, but my recollection of the 2004 election is that if anyone's campaign was based on visceral hatred of the other side, it was Kerry's.

As for his broader point, I'm not sure that I disagree. Obama seemed much more likable in many people's eyes when people thought he was harmless. If he wasn't going to be the nominee, then any criticism of him would have no upside, and would subject the critic to accusations of racism.
2.16.2008 2:26pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
It got me to laugh a bit at the beginning, but I thought it got repetitive and uninspired pretty quickly. The basic concept was sound but something was lacking about the execution.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I agree that a lot about his campaign's message ("politics of hope", "change we can believe in", "bringing people together") is pretty vapid. I don't think he's much worse than your average presidential candidate on this score though. Dole was a "better man for a better America", Clinton was "building a bridge to the 21st century", Bush '00 was a "compassionate conservative", and Gore supported "prosperity and progress". Not a lot of substance there.
2.16.2008 2:30pm
Laura S.:
I haven't read many conservative blogs on Obama, but if you're looking for viciousness you should be looking at the conservative smear campaign against McCain--of which the temperament charge is just the latest prong of the attach.

Obama does generally seem like a reasonable guy--despite his voting record. I've always favored an Obama/McCain match up because I believed it wouldn't be a travesty for either to win.

That said, Obama's voting record paints him as quite partisan. So as a liberal turned independent, I'm leaning in McCain's favor. He clearly shows himself to be nonpartisan.

I've gradually soured on Obama the more I've learned his record rather than his speeches.
2.16.2008 3:00pm
BGates:

This is the way the Republicans make a living in national politics, by destroying their opponents. That's their bread and butter. They don't care if they are hypocritical . They don't care if they are fair. They don't care if they're dealing with doctored evidence. They don't care anything about that. That's their deal. They are not interested in governing and changing. They are very interested in maintaining power.

-Bill Clinton, 1992.
"Do I think it's plausible that some people would be convinced by Justin" - no, under no circumstances at all.
2.16.2008 3:05pm
Kovarsky (mail):
i'm amazed at how many times people can thoughtlessly repeat the "me talk pretty" meme as if http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ doesn't exist.
2.16.2008 3:58pm
pete (mail) (www):
"i'm amazed at how many times people can thoughtlessly repeat the "me talk pretty" meme as if http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ doesn't exist."

You do realize that link goes to a "page not found" message right?
2.16.2008 4:09pm
John McCall (mail):
He means this; he just screwed up the syntax.
2.16.2008 4:11pm
Dave N (mail):
I still think McCain-Obama is the best possible national election. Though I will, in all probability, vote for McCain, I am much less worried about President Obama than President Clinton44.

But I must disagree strongly with Justin's claim that partisan warfare and BDS broke out as a result of the Iraq War. That is political revisionism, plain and simple.

The Democrats' outrage over the 2000 election was, at a minimum, the starting point for BDS.

As for Republicans attacking Obama's policy positions--that is what elections are all about. Obama has a public record--and his public record, as both an Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator, is certainly fair game.
2.16.2008 4:23pm
LM (mail):
Dave N,

But I must disagree strongly with Justin's claim that partisan warfare and BDS broke out as a result of the Iraq War. That is political revisionism, plain and simple.

The Democrats' outrage over the 2000 election was, at a minimum, the starting point for BDS.

That's simply incorrect. It conflates the anger over the 2000 election with hatred that followed much later. In the post 9/11 period, Bush's approval rating was around 90%. Obviously most liberals were willing to put subordinate any residual anger they had about the election to their patriotism in order to support the President in a time of crisis. Although this level of support inevitably drifted downward, it remained high throughout the Afghanistan campaign, only eroding seriously in the runup to invading Iraq.

Even then I'd maintain that the predominant emotional objections to the Iraq resolution and the invasion were angry, not hateful. Significant levels of hatred of the sort the Right expressed toward the Clintons from day one of Bill's Presidency didn't begin until Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and their acolytes started demonizing those opposed to the war as unpatriotic, disloyal cowards. For reasons I won't bother trying to explain, they took that personally.
2.16.2008 5:10pm
LM (mail):
to put subordinate
2.16.2008 5:11pm
LM (mail):
By the way, this Obama supporter thought it was a pretty funny column. I'd like to think I could do that if I were only clever and knew how to write.
2.16.2008 5:16pm
Federal Dog:
"but my point wasn't that Republicans hate and Democrats don't, it was that Republicans hate *as* political strategy."


Projection is a remarkable thing. For democrats, hate is no mere strategy, political or otherwise: Hate and envy are lenses through which they view the world.
2.16.2008 5:51pm
LM (mail):
So, Democrats see the world through a lens of hate, Republicans don't, and who's projecting?
2.16.2008 6:39pm
Kovarsky (mail):
what are you people talking about
2.16.2008 7:02pm
Dave N (mail):
LM,

In the aftermath of 9/11, while GWB's Presidential approval rose to a stratospheric 90%, the professional haters on the Democratic side were still out there--DailyKos, MoveOn.org, and Michael Moore, to name but three.

And yes, there are haters on the right, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Pat Buchanan all come immediately to mind. My point was that the genesis of BDS was anger at the outcome of the 2000 election.
2.16.2008 7:26pm
LM (mail):
Dave,

I'm sure Michael Moore needed no excuse to hate George Bush, so if you want to pin it on the 2000 election, that's fine. Daily Kos and MoveOn are too big to generalize about, though there's doubtless a cohort in each about whom the same could be said. The question isn't whether there's a hard core extreme on both sides who need only be pointed toward the enemy du jour in order to direct their 24/7 hatred. Certainly for that contingent on the left, if the 2000 Election Day controversy didn't occur, they'd have had to invent it. The question is whether that knee-jerk quality accurately describes the broad group of liberals whose every criticism is routinely dismissed as the product of BDS. For those people, most of whom didn't even oppose Bush until Iraq, it's a lie, a smear and a dodge to write them off so conveniently.
2.16.2008 7:51pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
I gotta say, when I clicked on www.barackobama.com/issues and got a "404 - not found" error, I laughed my ass off. Funniest thing I've read in AGES.
2.16.2008 8:00pm
Toby:
Clearly I was wrong. "Fear Bush" was spray-painted around this college town in 2000. In 1980, it was western conservatives who feared Bush.
2.16.2008 8:10pm
Gary Anderson (mail):
For all those who think/thought Obama would pull in conservative votes, did it ever occur to anyone that many are/were just voting Obama so McCain would have a lesser inexperienced senator to compare himself to in the general election?

Something tells me all those helping Obama win primaries in so many states will be sticking with the (R) candidate come fall. Those superdelegates, if they indeed come into play, should think about what the party faithful want, not all these unknown newcomer voters hopping on the Obama bandwagon. This party faithful strongly suspects a President Obama with his remake-the-system dreams would be akin to President Carter: foreign policy no-nothing who would set the party back for the next 3 terms, at least.

As it is, whoever wins gets the job almost impossible job of cleaning up the Middle East mess. Premature withdrawal will be painful, no two ways about it. (Obama says we'll be out in 2009 -- less than 12 full months after he's inaugurated).

Hopefully something new will capture their attention soon, and the young will tune out to their newfound passion that they've invested no longterm thought in. Then the old uber-liberals trying to recapture their youth and Vietnam glory days won't want to be on that bandwagon either, once the kids have deserted. And the rest of the party will wise up to the practices of Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries skewing the results. See... I have hopes too.
2.16.2008 9:04pm
Evelyn Marie Blaine (mail):
In her article, Dahlia Lithwick writes: "I mean cults are soooo 1970s. And cults of personality? So totally first century."

I assume that, although there certainly were cults of personality in the first century, the expression "cult of personality" is strictly post-1956 -- specifically, it derives from Khrushchev's secret speech.

Am I right? Does anyone know of uses of the term in English before '56? Is it the obvious calque of the Russian 'Культ личности', or would this better be rendered 'cult of the person'? (I don't speak Russian.)

Anybody?
2.16.2008 9:05pm
PJH (mail) (www):
Now you stop that, Ms. Evelyn Marie Blaine! We are much too busy feeding the trolls to be bothered by an interesting and intelligent question. We will not have it!
2.16.2008 9:40pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
Gary Anderson wrote:
For all those who think/thought Obama would pull in conservative votes, did it ever occur to anyone that many are/were just voting Obama so McCain would have a lesser inexperienced senator to compare himself to in the general election?

I hope not. I think Obama is the tougher candidate. Whatever else he is, or isn't, he doesn't appear to be a creep. Hillary's experience isn't so formidable as to give JMcC many sleepless nights. I mean, if she actually had a "record of achievement", I'd expect a few details would have leaked out by now. No?
2.16.2008 10:27pm
Pantapon Rose (mail):
The cult of personality is derived from Marx's writings on the cult of the individual.
2.16.2008 10:37pm
Thad, the fierce and cunning political observer (mail):
Obama is Kucinich with gravitas. Hillary is Bill with far less charm. McCain's McCain.
2.16.2008 11:21pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
Thad, the fierce and cunning political observer wrote:
Obama is Kucinich with gravitas. Hillary is Bill with far less charm. McCain's McCain.

McCain is Nixon without the 5 o'clock shadow.
2.16.2008 11:28pm
Thad, the fierce and cunning political observer (mail):
Obama actually is Kucinich with gravitas. Excerpt:

"A day after the tragic shootings at NIU, Barack Obama has revealed that he thinks the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun.

"That sounds surprising—and certainly not what you’d expect from someone with the Senate’s most liberal voting record."

[...]

"... Obama was not one of the 55 senators (including Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and eight other Democrats) who signed a brief last week arguing the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional."
2.17.2008 12:10am
LM (mail):

Obama is Kucinich with gravitas.

If Obama has ever been abducted by aliens, he has the good sense to keep it to himself.
2.17.2008 12:54am
Gary Anderson (mail):
if she actually had a "record of achievement", I'd expect a few details would have leaked out by now.

The woman has shown she can fight Republicans. Obama's apparent strategy is to get them to like him sooooo much, that everyone will just join hands and kumbaya our way to peace. Like her or not, Clinton has shown she can work with Democrats to push back against Republicans who quite clearly know what they're doing in battle. I think she's learned from her husband's administration mistakes, and keenly understands how Washington today works.

Now, we may not like that adverse two-party system, but someone who understands it from within (I don't think she was just baking cookies and not taking notes while her husband's administration was in the White House) and is realistic about what it will take to work within it is much more preferable to me than somebody who thinks he can just click his heels, wave a magic wand and remake Washington. Sorry chump, just won't happen that easy. And the Republicans are with you all the way ... until you realize they have their own agendas and will like you even more if you want to hold hands instead of fighting it. Clinton can fight, she's realistic about what can be acheived. Obama thinks it's going to be like his buddy Oprah: The Big Giveaway.

You may like her better than him, but clearly she's more fit to lead the party in Washinton. Wait and see how long Obama stays on his feet against McCain, and if there really are enough stupid and young voters to put him in the White House, wait and see how well the "withdrawal by the end of 2009" and Great Giveaways promises are fulfilled. He's a chump if he believes in what he's saying today.
2.17.2008 1:03pm
Anon. E. Mouse:
Bill Dyer: would young, hip, cynical Lithwick vote for Obama or Clinton?

Kovarsky: I don't know how she would actually vote.

Curt Fischer: It may very well be that Dahlia won't be voting at all, and, if she did vote, it might be fraud. That's 'cause, at least according to Wikipedia, Dahlia is Canadian.

The wonderful irony of that Wikipedia page is this at the very bottom:


This article about an American journalist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
2.17.2008 1:45pm
Dave N (mail):
Anon E. Mous,

Didn't you know that Canadians and Americans are really all the same anyway?
2.17.2008 2:03pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Why am I supposed to be impressed by Obama again?
2.17.2008 3:14pm
Mike Keenan:

The wonderful irony of that Wikipedia page is this at the very bottom:
This article about an American journalist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

A look at the history of the page indicates it has been switched back and forth a few times from a US stub to a Canadian stub. US is winning at the moment. You are welcome to switch it!
2.17.2008 4:16pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
Gary Anderson wrote:
"...if she actually had a "record of achievement", I'd expect a few details would have leaked out by now."

The woman has shown she can fight Republicans. Obama's apparent strategy is to get them to like him sooooo much, that everyone will just join hands and kumbaya our way to peace. Like her or not, Clinton has shown she can work with Democrats to push back against Republicans who quite clearly know what they're doing in battle. I think she's learned from her husband's administration mistakes, and keenly understands how Washington today works.


I don't know what kind of President Hillary would be--and I sincerely hope I can say that 4 years from now--but she definietely gets props for being a savvy and tough political operative. She's definitely the one who would bring brass knuckles to a bareknuckle street brawl.

However, if being an infighter and a partisan political hack were qualifications to ascend to the highest office in the land, then we should just nominate Karl Rove and James Carville to run for the Whitehouse.
2.17.2008 6:33pm
Bandon:
Gary Anderson comments:

He's a chump if he believes in what he's saying today.


Although Gary appears to be talking about Obama, can't we see that the comment actually applies much more accurately to Gary himself? Yes, we can!!!
2.18.2008 5:07pm