Dr. Tyler; Captain America

Sounds like it came from Lehane.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/30/...rez.bush.kerry/ And that took me all of 3 seconds to find.

No, he leaves that up to his campaign chief and the RNC.

Yeah, because it's a bad thing to say things about the people you're facing. I haven't heard any of the candidates talking about Bush's cocaine use or alcoholism, have you?

I find both forms of libel despicable, as do I find the fact that you buy that story based on absolutely nothing despicable. If true, this breaks open the nomination battle and, hopefully, will have the result of giving one of the latter two candidates the nomination. I have my preference, but my second preference has always been Edwards. I can't stand Kerry either way. But, as I've said before, I still would vote for Kerry over Bush. And as I'm saying now, this is a despicable trick by Drudge if it's false. Even if it's true, though, that doesn't make Drudge anything less than a rumor-mongerer who happens to get one right out of every fifteen.

I'll believe it when those mediums start reporting it.

Oh, Jesus Christ. Shut up with that nonsense. Clinton interracial baby story, anyone?

No.

And completely wrong about 99% of everything else. There isn't another man in the "media" (and I use that term extremly loosely; Drudge usually just posts moronic rumors, not real stories) who can do this kind of thing and not get constantly sued for libel.

Oh please. It's Drudge.

Except, of course, that he IS a Democrat, and they're trying to like, WIN BACK the Senate. And, after all, taking a Democrat away from the Senate will... well... take one of those away. Jesus, I thought you were a polysci scholar.

Excellent column by Richard Cohen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...8-2004Feb9.html Err... uh... so wait... Bush's paystubs prove what now?

BWAHAHAHAHAH BWAHAHAHAHAH Didn't you support JoeMentum?

For a human being, you're a surprisingly vapid moron. I wrote several posts on why it would be stupid for Edwards to accept the VP nomination, and this was, in fact, affirmed by his many denials that he'd accept a VP nomination. Of course one wouldn't want to be like "Yeah, gee, sure, I'd love to be the VP!!!!!!" while they're running for President, but he has -- many times, even -- flat out stated that he has absolutely no interest in the Vice Presidential nomination. Kerry, Dean, and other nominees (the lesser ones matter less, but when Graham was in the race, he didn't either) haven't said anything like what Clark or Edwards have insisted. Edwards isn't going to leave the Senate if he loses. That would be utterly stupid, considering what he would add (which is marginal at best, considering there are just as many solid geographical nominees who don't happen to be in the Senate) to the ticket.

Hahahahaha.

... Way to ignore the entire breadth of my five posts in this topic, moron.

Just a standard XP "This program has encountered an error and must close" type shit. No BSOD.

He endorsed Kerry, but Gep would make a terrible VP nominee.

Fair enough, I apologize for that. I understand the percieved weakness of "running" for the VP nod, but I don't think that's the case at all. The Democrats are trying to take over the Senate, and they don't want to lose more seats than they have to. There are other people out there that would offer the same -- even a greater -- geographical advantage than Edwards. It just doesn't make sense, and people should just take the guy for his word. He's not gonna accept the VP nod.

Another name being thrown around -- albeit less than Richardson or Warner -- is Tom Harkin, the senator from Iowa. The reason it's being thrown around less, though, is the same as the reason why Edwards won't take the nomination: we don't want to lose more seats in the Senate.

Oh, SHUT UP!

Except you're IGNORING the fact that the man is currently in the Senate. If he's not the presidential nominee, he has no reason to want to lose that senate seat for the democrats, and he'd provide AT BEST marginal geographical advantage as a VP candidate. If Kerry or Dean is the nominee, they'll pick a democratic governor in a red state (likely Richardson from NM or Mark Warner from VA). If Edwards is the nominee, he has a lot more freedom and could pick someone like Clark, Bob Graham from Flordia, or even Dean (who has said he'll accept a VP nod -- see the difference?). He could also choose the aforementioned red state democratic governor, but that's less of a necessity in an Edwards campaign. But hey, because ALL DEMOCRATS ARE LIARS, you should DEFINITELY NOT take Edwards at his word. Because, y'know, that'd be silly. God, you're a moron.

No, I'm just so sick of Republicans coming up with randomly stupid comments about Democrat issues that they have no clue about. How many times has the "HILARY IS RUNNING IN 2004, JUST WAIT!" rumor surfaced? And how many times has she said "No, I'm not running" and you guys discounted it like so: Edwards has firmly and repeatedly stated that he's not going to accept a VP nod, but you and several others on the boards have used shit pulled out of your ass to back up an assertion that he's just DUPING us all and he's really running for the VP nod. Uh, okay. Whatever.

Neither does anything you post.

... Um... it's from The Onion. The damned finest news source on the planet.