As of 1/02/08, who do you support for President?

[greyl]

Commentary appreciated.
(Choices are in alphabetical order)

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Dodd for me.

At this point. He's not polling well, and I'm sure he won't do well.

But I really liked his stance against the retroactive immunity bill. Since the McClurkin thing happened right about the time Dodd promised to filibuster, I decided to reward good behavior.

The top three in order of preference: Edwards, Obama, Clinton.

[HamdenRice]

8. "I decided to reward good behavior"

Dodd must be thrilled. I suppose he's going to have to reprint all of his campaign material to reflect the fact that he has received the endorsement of famous internet personality, boloboffin.

Fill us in on the juicy details! What was it like when you revealed your endorsement to him? Did he tear up? Did his voice break?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. That's pretty much a direct quote from Duncan Black. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

23. I'm curious...

do you do much of anything here besides attack Boloboffin? I'm "just asking questions, here".

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Yes, he does.

He attacks Greyl, too.

In fact, Hamden's an equal opportunity shit slinger. Stick around long enough and you'll get it too.

[SDuderstadt]

25. I can hardly wait because....

I give as good as I get.

[HamdenRice]

2. Wrong forum

unless you can rephrase this in terms of a connection between what one believes about 9/11 and candidate support.

Otherwise, please only post material and polls here related to typical 9/11 forum subject matter.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Problems answering the poll, Hamden? n/t

[HamdenRice]

4. Of course not

why didn't greyl just rephrase the OP to make it relevant to this forum. Otherwise, what is it doing here?

Surely you can see that it's an inappropriate post, can't you?

[Kingshakabobo]

18. Shoulda included Larouche.

:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

19. Is THAT your choice???

That's horrible. Larouche is a nutjob and anti-Semite. I'm disgusted that you want him on the ballot. Then again, given your prior posts...

[greyl]

5. Your amicability is inspirational.

If you're only interested in a divisive poll that encourages conflict amongst the DUers who frequent this forum, feel free to post it.

[HamdenRice]

6. Wrong forum

What part of that can't you understand?

[greyl]

7. Maybe I'll do one involving chemtrails... nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. Edwards

Although I can't vote in US elections, but it's a nice hypothetical anyway. I haven't been particularly thrilled by any candidates so far, but if I needed to choose now it would be Edwards. Mainly because of his campaign theme of social justice.

[JackRiddler]

10. .

[greyl]

11. What happened? Your original was good. nt

[Bryan Sacks]

13. jack was visitng me over the holidays. Must have logged in as hisself :)

[greyl]

15. What did "followed by silence" mean in the first edit? nt

[Bryan Sacks]

17. I typed in a period, and that automatically came up

in my effort to quickly edit, I didn't catch that 'auto-type'.

[Bryan Sacks]

12. I'll bite

John Edwards. He is the only candidate on the big stage saying radical things. It's very important that he last in the race as long as possible.

I don't know if he means a word he says. But he's decided to play the populist, and the message is resonating. Not surprisingly, because people are basically progressive, and obviously disgusted with corporate domination.

Yet here's the devastating rub: Edwards will lose, not so much because he lacks money (which he does), but because when push comes to shove (as it will if he wins a few of these early states), the sheep (most of us) will choose the captivity they know over the chance (however rhetorical) for freedom. The way Edwards is voicing is exciting. But destroying the corporate grip does not only mean a chance at a truly participatory, egalitarian, healthy, caring and peaceful society. That has to be weighed against less (or no) American Idol, Ted Koppel and NFL Football. Fewer supermarkets and shopping malls. Higher prices. Less automation.

I want people to be confronted with the rhetorical possibility of what they've been clamoring for, and then have to accept that they lacked the makeup to actually take it. That we HAD A CHANCE to try for what we've all said we need, and failed to bring it off.

That is what John Edwards offers all of us. He is a major candidate; he has been delivering the most anti-corporate message of any recent major candidate in recent history (way more than Dean); he is promising the return of power to the people, and while that's not exactly unique among campaigners, he has identified and pointed the finger squarely the major cause of the people's disenfranchisement. THAT is unique (to candidates not named Nader).

But the problem of corporatism is so large that it has deformed people's ability to conceive of, and to truly support, the making of a non-corporate world. John Edwards is promising that remaking. When he doesn't win, hopefully then we can begin to accept to coldness of our political reality.

And if I'm wrong: then we get Edwards, who has been promising the moon, and would at least have to try to deliver some of the stars. I will vote for him if he makes it to PA.

[greyl]

14. Weird. That's exactly the same post JackRiddler has now deleted.

I had no idea you guys were so close.

[RedSock]

16. I voted Other -- as it was closest to "None". eom

[greyl]

22. Here's a bumper sticker you may not like...

[nebula]

20. Edwards because out of the frontrunners

...he sucks the least.

[greyl]

26. Obama/Biden anyone? ;) nt

[greyl]

36. nudge.

[JackRiddler]

27. I think I'm leaving the country.

In order of likelihood I want to say I support:

- revelation of what happened at the Cheney energy talks and the complete story of 9/11, prompting the immediate resignation (flight) of the present regime, followed by a period of creative chaos and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.

- the election of Kucinich or Gravel. (oops, gone)

- the establishment of a parliamentary system with proportional representation, following a constitutional convention. (Are you kidding me? it would be dominated by corporate money and first order of business would be to cancel the Bill of Rights,)

- Nader, McKinney or that cool socialist guy whose name I forget

- a revolution - yeah, by whom?

But these all seem like so much Santa Claus, and Christmas was last week. The cumulative likelihood is <0.01%.

Edwards? Well, he's talking the talk at the moment, which is good in itself. But let's face it: Strategically he can only come in on the frontrunners by outflanking from the left, so of course he's going there. How did he vote on No Child, USA PATRIOT, IWR, Homeland, etc.? You can guess the depressing answer - whatever his rationalizations and believable regret now, these kinds of test votes tell you what's going to happen at the next crunch.

--

By the way, B.K. Sacks and N.E. Levis are historically separate personages - this can be confirmed!

;-)

[greyl]

28. That's an underrated and valid option.

But, where is there to go?

[SDuderstadt]

29. I'm thinking...

Burkina Faso for no other reason than I get a kick out of the name.

[greyl]

30. Heheh, but isn't that kindof a low standard?

You've only got one of these lives, after all....

[SDuderstadt]

31. No one has EVER accused me of high standards...

just ask any of the resident "truthers"


"Those are my principles...if you don't like those, I have others"
- Groucho Marx

[greyl]

32. Have you been threatened by them?

Burkina Faso is a unique region in West Africa..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso

[SDuderstadt]

33. Yeah, but...

I think they're only a danger to themselves and honesty and accurate information.

[greyl]

34. When honesty and accuracy are under assault,

... (insert values here)...

[hamuli75056]

35. The Democrat