You know, I was happy that the guy we endorsed in the Republican primary won in SC, but I sort of thought he had several more tough contests to go through before he had the GOP nomination in the bag.
Not according to the Democratic contenders tonight in Myrtle Beach: It’s John McCain this, John McCain that. Edwards says you’d best pick me ’cause I can take John McCain on in rural areas. Hillary says I’m the only one strong enough on defense to go against John McCain.
Has anybody told Huckabee and the rest about this? They might as well surrender at this rate….
Related Posts
Explain to me again how The State will endorse one of the three Democratic candidates as an acceptable choice for President of the United States.
Does that mean if the endorsee is nominated and McCain is not, that The State will stick with the Democrat? I mean, that’s what you’re saying aren’t you when you endorse a candidate for President? Or is the best Democrat only as good as the third or fourth best Republican? If that’s the case, then I hope you note that in your endorsement.
This whole notion of a newspaper endorsing candidates from both parties is bizarre.
To endorse one from each party is meaningless.
On the contrary: It’s the only honest and meaningful way one can approach it.
Brad, if the board endorses Clinton, will it be made clear you are endorsing a couple?
Didn’t we almost have one of these dual presidencies before Ford backed out in 1980?
Doug –
You raise a good point about consequences of endorsements, but The State’s editorial board probably doesn’t see things that way. If McCain ends up the winner on the Republican side and someone other than The State’s choice on the Dem side ends up winning, they reserve the right to pick anew for their endorsement for president later in the year.
The most entertaining coverage of tonight’s debate came from Stephen Green (Vodkapundit) who was liveblogging the debate. He saw Clinton and Obama as the only two real candidates, referring to Edwards as a “special guest.” While he was tempted to vote for one of the candidates, his conclusion is as follows:
The rest is hysteria.
Better to be populist than to completely ignore such issues as poverty and education. Such trifling issues don’t resonate with the GOP aside from the populist Huckster. That’s the analysis we can expect from someone who thinks their mouth can reach their forehead.
Y’all say what you will. I’m thankful for people who actually act like they give a hardly for most of us. I’m tired of the saying, “A rising tide floats all boats”; A rising tide drowns those who have no boats. Meanwhile, it was at least a little bit of a civil debate. As for Iraq, you assume that “the surge” equals winning. It does not. “The surge” equals temporary relocation. They know, as well as we all do do, that it’s not currently sustainable unless we get serious about this, as in including a ‘Marshall Plan’. Meanwhile, we still have problems in Afghanistan and no way to help them up either. We can either continue our attempt to bomb everyone back to the stone age, or we can realize that the only things that has worked long term (as far as I can see) involved plans to determine what their people needed, provided a means to meet that needs, and insured that what we offer is better than what they had.
The main reason I voted for John McCain is because he supports giving parents the right to choose the best education for their child, including charter schools and private school vouchers. He has repeatedly voted for vouchers for the Washington, DC, public school system.
I am shocked that you and The State have supported McCain in light of his advocacy for school vouchers, since you seem to hyperventilate in opposition every time the issue of school vouchers is raised.
You have been screaming in opposition to school vouchers for what – four or five years now at least? And South Carolina’s public schools are still among the worst in the country. Your solutions – whatever they are – have produced failure. John McCain is right – it’s time to give parents a choice.
Brad … you really have to stop seeing McCain in everything that happens. We’re getting worried for you. It’s getting sorta like the I saw Jesus in a cloud today (nimbus), or heaven forbid, Jesus on a Taco Bell burrito… Hope you don’t do this at home, with the new grandkids, or worse yet, in bed :0
… Is there a 12-step program for McCainiacs yet?
I think Edwards won the debate, not that it will win him enough votes to make much difference. Clinton and Obama had all too much dirt committed to memory tonight to make a really positive impression.
Still, I enjoyed the mudslinging. They both came away with mud on their faces, though.
And, oh, Brad, by the way, at the top of this page, your picture and McCain’s picture, well, you bear a certain resemblance, especially around the jowls.
Are the two of you related? If so, it would explain a lot.
I really wonder what has happened to journalism in this country. I watch as people complain about mudslinging and listen to opinions about who won or lost the debate, but I see no attempt to consistently provide useful information by the press about statements made and what is accurate or inaccurate. Isn’t that the purpose of journalism; or is it to write sensational accounts concerning the drama of the debate? At any rate, I “think” that Obama and Edwards fared better as a result of the debate because it is clear that Clinton simply wanted to throw unsubstantiated barbs at Obama for political affect without regard for the truth. People see through that. Edwards did a decent job of saying “hey, don’t forget me, I’m in this race too.” Obama showed that he is ready for a fight, can take the criticism, and throw hard punches right back. I think people needed to see that he is tough enough to do that.
As for The State’s endorsement, nobody really cares; but it is entertaining. What people do care about is receiving real information that they find it difficult or too cumbersome to glean on their own. That, we would like from The State.
McCain talks like a Democrat.
McCain discussed running with John Kerry, so why not with Hillary Clinton?
Answer: ego. They both want to be No. 1.
The State’s Democratic endorsement is rather pointless. I believe they’ve endorsed the GOP candidate for president 7 straight times. Shows you how far to the right folks have gone in SC when they can accuse this clearly right-wing paper of having a liberal bias.
In light of the release of documents from the Clinton Library, Hillary is “cooked”. The Republicans will have a field day. And understand—-it’s not that the Republicans don’t already know what’s in “the papers”. NOW they have ammunition to back it up—because they’re USED TO the Clinton’s spin. The ESTABLISHMENT, as she relies on for experience——WILL BE HER DEMISE.
Sam shows how far the GOP will stoop to impune the integrity of Senator Clinton. Here’s a woman who has been thoroughly and completely investigated for the past 20 years and nothing, absolutely nothing has ever been proven. It’s all a bunch of trash talk radio inuendo and smear.
On the other hand, Brad’s hero McCain was implicated in the Keating 5 incident. Yet there is never any mention of that. Guiliani is a veritable smorgasboard of slime. Huckabee wants a theocracy and Romney can’t keep his story straight on what he believes in.
So now we have Sam once again suggesting Hillary Clinton will now be proven guilty of something. He doesn’t say what. He really doesn’t have to, that’s not important. The mere implication of wrongdoing, made over and over again has falsely convinced millions of Americans that Hillary Clinton is something evil. Too bad people are so incapable of thinking for themselves.
Hey Folks in South Carolina…I’m from Illinois, the birthplace of Hillary Clinton and the adopted home of Obama. The best candidate, however, is the guy from YOUR CORNER of the country, JOHN EDWARDS. I hope you will consider giving him your vote in the Democratic primary this week…unless, of course, you want John McCain to win the general elections. Thanks for hearing this and thanks for giving us Edwards, a man whose platform gives real meaning to the word Democracy.
As a reminder to reader Bud, Mrs. Clinton claims “experience by association” to her husband Bill Clinton. By the same token, then, she needs to assume responsibility by association for Bill Clinton’s errors, which were not few. Bill Clinton encouraged and signed the partial revocation of the Glass-Steagall bank oversight act to help his billionaire investment-bank friends at Citigroup and Goldmans Sachs. Bill Clinton, and Hillary by association, were thus directly responsible for helping cause the whole subprime mortgage crisis that our country is now facing. On another front, Bill Clinton had the chance at least three times in 1998 to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden following attacks on U.S. embassies, and HE CHOSE NOT TO. Bill Clinton, and thus Hillary Clinton by association, are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the attacks on our country and its involvement in at least 2 foreign wars. Are you going to vote for the continuation of this type of IRRESPONSIBILITY BY ASSOCIATION? If not, you have a couple of choices. You can vote for a Republican candidate, you can vote for Obama, or you can vote for John Edwards. You can vote for Obama, except that he’s got some serious ethical problems from taking at least $300k in sweet deal loans for personal use from his lobbyist political friends in Illinois. Now, think about your choices–and good luck choosing the best candidate when it’s your turn to speak up on Saturday.
Again, we see how everyone buys into the fiction of talk radio. Since it’s impossible to win this fight I’ll try a different approach. Whatever the shortcomings of the Clinton years, and an honest reflection reveals there were some, they were significantly better across the board than what we’ve suffered through with Bush. Nobody can objectively suggest that the economy has run more smoothly under Bush than Clinton. Foreign policy was generally successful under Clinton whereas under the current leadership everything has fallen apart. We spend more money for poorer results under the Bush defense thinking that at any time in American history. Sure Clinton failed to capture Bin-laden, but I would suggest it wasn’t for a lack of trying. But Clinton clearly recognized the threat he posed and tried to convey this to the Bush team. He was ignored while Bush pushed ahead with the various wasteful, worthless military toys like the missle defence system.
On the economic front we had 8 grand and glorious years of growth and prosperity during the Clinton years. Bush managed to turn this into an ongoing recession for most Americans while the rich continue to get still richer. As TTJ points out Clinton did sign legislation that was intended to help the housing industry. In hind sight this went too far. Hillary Clinton will work to correct the relatively few mistakes made by her husband. She is after all her own woman. But first and foremost she will address the many grevious mistakes made by his successor.
It may be just me, but I find it amusing to find the first black guy to ever get this far in presidential politics sitting between (and getting beat up by) two white candidates. Clinton and Edwards are worth perhaps $50 million each and Obama is worth about $1 million. And, the perfectly coiffured Edwards was complaining that he is in the race with two media stars that have raised more money. Finally, it’s interesting that Obama really has a more substantive legislative record in the Senate than either Clinton or Edwards. Just a very interesting scene.
Winner of Democratic debate: John McCain *Brad
I thought he left the state Saturday night and hotfooted it to Florida to cover his staff checks before they bound ahead of the Huckabee checks.
Are you silly people still thinking that everything is cool with the coming depression?
@Randy Wilkins – I agree with you, man…
On another note: Hillary and Edwards met up last night after the debate. Since the two of them attended last year’s Bilderberg Conference (for those of you who don’t know what that is, please look it up), I don’t doubt for a second that this was John’s way of securing his place as her VP. (Evan Bayh has been touted as her running mate – also a BC attendee last year, along with Bill Richardson. Interestingly enough, Obama has never attended or invited. Hmmm…) Anyway, it’s clearer to me now than it’s ever been – Hillary will concede the African-American vote (except for the ones that are dedicated to the thought of Bill Clinton as “one of them”) and with Edward’s cooperation, collect most of the white support along with Edward’s delegates/superdelegates, and blow past Obama on the way to the White House (if she doesn’t get stopped by the Republicans and the truth behind her her husband’s yet unreleased papers).
Of course, this is my opinion; and opinions – buttholes…I get it…
John Edwards has the best plans and solutions to move our country forward.
Heck! even McCain, Huckabee and Romney are copying him now!
The State is part of the Corporate Owned Media with corporate sponsors that keep the working poor poor and the middle class struggling.
And we don’t expect The State to endorse a candidate that would be the most helpful to the majority of its readers – the working poor and middle class.
Sticking with Edwards because he’s sticking up for us!
Let’s see, Bud. Clinton inherited the momentum from Reagan’s policies and Bush inherited a stall from the Clintons growing government, NAFTA sending jobs overseas and Clinton ignoring the forces that led to 9-11, which has put its own dagger into the economy.
The Clintons floated on Reagan’s wave and now they want to patch up the boat they ditched on the beach of lies. If the country lets them take to the water, here’s hoping they have at least a paddle to row us to safety.
Clinton’s own advisors said it was lack of trying that is why Bin Laden was not captured. They named every sorry refusal of Clinton, Reno and others.
Richard Holbrooke wrote it.
Dick Morris wrote it.
Clinton’s military advisors wrote it.
Go read what they said about the Coward in Chief.