Democratic Party Candidates for POTUS

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Who do you think will be/wish would be the Democratic Party's Nominee for President?

Sen. Joseph Biden
0
No votes
Sen. Hillary Clinton
4
10%
Sen. Chris Dodd
0
No votes
John Edwards
5
12%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
4
10%
Sen. Barack Obama
25
60%
Gov. Bill Richardson
2
5%
Someone Else
2
5%
 
Total votes : 42

Postby fascination_street » Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:59 am

Cerin wrote: the affair with or without having produced a child is equally damaging to Edwards.


I'd say its more damaging if it produced a child. It implies that Edwards is too dumb to practice safe sex, since most likely he would not have wanted to have a child with this woman.
User avatar
fascination_street
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:47 am
Location: Ontario
Top

Postby portia » Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:39 pm

Aside from the ethics problem, it is just plain dumb to create such a time bomb for himself, had he been nominated. Much was made of his decision to run even though his wife had a recurrence of cancer, but how about deciding to run knowing that the run was doomed because, of course, the affair would be made public?

Was he so dumb that he thought it could stay a secret?
Was he that far into denial?
What made him run, anyway? Ego? Liking the spotlight and adoration?
I am, frankly, mystified by his behavior.

As for McCain's past, he probably considers it old news, and it may be. But it probably would not take much to bring it into the current news.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby portia » Tue May 01, 2012 8:42 am

Update, sort of, on John Edwards.

He is on trial for supposedly trying to conceal what was actually a campaign contribution and needed to be reported but instead claiming it was a gift to help him keep knowledge of his affair from his wife.

Well, that is a pretty subtle distinction, and I am not going to comment on the whole thing, but I am perplexed by one little aspect.

Mr and Mrs Young BOTH say that they used most of the money raised, after it was leftover from taking care of Ms. Hunter and the baby, for their own house. That seems to me to indicate that the Youngs didn't think of it as a campaign donation, because shouldn't it have been returned to the campaign? Maybe not, as it hadn't been reported in the first place. But then, how about returning it to the donor?

I haven't heard any information about what they thought allowed them to keep the money. Did they have some excuse? Or was it just embezzlement?

It is puzzling.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Tue May 01, 2012 1:19 pm

I think John Edwards is a despicable human being (I thought that long before all this stuff came out, as Cerin can confirm), but there is no way that he is guilty of campaign finance violations.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner

 
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Postby portia » Wed May 02, 2012 7:08 am

I think you are right.
When a person runs for President everything he/she has ever done, is doing or is thinking about doing can become an issue in the campaign. But using that reasoning on which to base a criminal prosecution is just too thin.

Another comment:
It seems to me that by the time the money was paid both purposes (keeping the info from Elizabeth and seriously campaigning for President) were hopeless.

Whatever money has been spent on this prosecution is wasted.

In the commentaries on this trial, I haven't heard anything that suggests that this was a campaign--related concern. We all know Edwards was behaving very badly, but that is not a crime. How was he using the money for the campaign, specifically? I really doubt that a jury is going to decide "he is such a sleazeball, he must be guilty."
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Thu May 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Minardil » Thu May 10, 2012 6:00 pm

At least Obama got more votes than the convict. Ron Paul got way less.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Democritus » Fri May 11, 2012 6:28 am

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)
User avatar
Democritus
Mariner

 
Posts: 5440
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 8:08 pm
Top

Postby Minardil » Fri May 11, 2012 7:33 am

Democritus wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)


I am still waiting for the explanation of why the convict got four times as many votes as Ron Paul. What that says to me is that while Mr. Obama is only 1.5 times as popular as a convicted criminal, Ron Paul is only 1/4 as popular.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Arvegil » Fri May 11, 2012 8:35 am

Minardil wrote:
Democritus wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)


I am still waiting for the explanation of why the convict got four times as many votes as Ron Paul. What that says to me is that while Mr. Obama is only 1.5 times as popular as a convicted criminal, Ron Paul is only 1/4 as popular.


Oh, come on. That is a specious argument and you know it. All the Dems have is a "middle finger protest" option, while the GOP is definitely in "we need to coalesce behind the obvious winner" mode.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Fri May 11, 2012 9:49 am

Minardil wrote:
Democritus wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)


I am still waiting for the explanation of why the convict got four times as many votes as Ron Paul. What that says to me is that while Mr. Obama is only 1.5 times as popular as a convicted criminal, Ron Paul is only 1/4 as popular.


The anti Ron Paul conspiracy. Duh. :wink:
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Sun May 13, 2012 8:23 pm

Democritus wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)


59 to 41 is a winning margin. Are you saying that Obama could lose if he gets 59% of the vote?

Anyway, I've said many times in the last few months that I expect Obama to beat Romney, and as a result save the Republican Party from itself.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Arvegil » Thu May 17, 2012 10:31 am

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Democritus wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)


59 to 41 is a winning margin. Are you saying that Obama could lose if he gets 59% of the vote?

Anyway, I've said many times in the last few months that I expect Obama to beat Romney, and as a result save the Republican Party from itself.


And how is Romney worse for the GOP than the insane Bachmann, the vicious Gingrich, the fundie thrall Santorum, lovemeister Cain, or "I got this country into an expensive quagmire over unresolved daddy issues" Bush II?

Frankly, while Romney looks like a bit of an ideology-devoid opportunist, he actually seems less dangerous to the GOP in the long run than someone like Bachmann or Santorum.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Mon May 21, 2012 10:32 am

Arvegil wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Democritus wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)


59 to 41 is a winning margin. Are you saying that Obama could lose if he gets 59% of the vote?

Anyway, I've said many times in the last few months that I expect Obama to beat Romney, and as a result save the Republican Party from itself.


And how is Romney worse for the GOP than the insane Bachmann, the vicious Gingrich, the fundie thrall Santorum, lovemeister Cain, or "I got this country into an expensive quagmire over unresolved daddy issues" Bush II?

Frankly, while Romney looks like a bit of an ideology-devoid opportunist, he actually seems less dangerous to the GOP in the long run than someone like Bachmann or Santorum.


Because if Obama wins he is left holding the hot potato of the upcoming economy.

I believe the economy is going to get worse. Start with that as a foundational premise, and the rest of the analysis makes sense.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will be handed a very powerful rhetorical attack - the economy went into decline under Bush and got worse under Romney, both Republicans. The four years of Obama will be portrayed as him trying to prevent the collapse but not being able to because he only had one term. This will severely injure the Republican Party for a long time. It's not about which Republican is in office, although that has ancillary implications.

If Obama wins, the Democrats will not have that weapon, plus when the additional taxes kick in to pay for Obamacare (remember, those taxes are set to start in Obama's second term) it will be impossible to blame Romney when the economy declines even further since Romney won't be in office. Also the Republicans will have a weaker but still powerful tool of saying that Obama is still blaming Bush so many years later and that the new taxes are a cause for the second term economic hardships. They will contribute to a certain extent, but the main cause has been building for a long time so it's not attributable to Bush or Obama.

An Obama victory saves the Republicans from being blamed for what happens when Obama is in office.

It is tough for me to figure out which outcome I desire, and I don't desire the economic hardships that are fast approaching. If Romney wins, it may actually cause the Republican Party to fracture, and thus clear the way for an actual opposition party. That would be good for the country. On the other hand, if Romney wins then the collapse will be blamed on his free market beliefs even though he doesn't have any - which will basically be a replay of the blame heaped on Bush Jr, and also Herbert Hoover. On the one hand, getting rid of the Republicans would be a major potential benefit, although it is lower probability. On the other hand, it is a virtual certainty that the free market will be blamed if Romney wins even though the free market had no part of this mess.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Arvegil » Mon May 21, 2012 1:49 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Arvegil wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Democritus wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Unpopular Obama: Texas prison inmate gets 4 in 10 votes in Democratic primary in West Virginia

Prisoner gets 41 percent against President Obama in West Virginia primary

In the West Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary, a convict just received 41% of the vote. Obama still won, but this kind of a showing is problematic for Obama.

And he's not even related to that star of the Democratic Party Alvin Greene.


When Obama wins the 2012 Presidential election in November I will re-post your comments... and laugh. :)


59 to 41 is a winning margin. Are you saying that Obama could lose if he gets 59% of the vote?

Anyway, I've said many times in the last few months that I expect Obama to beat Romney, and as a result save the Republican Party from itself.


And how is Romney worse for the GOP than the insane Bachmann, the vicious Gingrich, the fundie thrall Santorum, lovemeister Cain, or "I got this country into an expensive quagmire over unresolved daddy issues" Bush II?

Frankly, while Romney looks like a bit of an ideology-devoid opportunist, he actually seems less dangerous to the GOP in the long run than someone like Bachmann or Santorum.


Because if Obama wins he is left holding the hot potato of the upcoming economy.

I believe the economy is going to get worse. Start with that as a foundational premise, and the rest of the analysis makes sense.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will be handed a very powerful rhetorical attack - the economy went into decline under Bush and got worse under Romney, both Republicans. The four years of Obama will be portrayed as him trying to prevent the collapse but not being able to because he only had one term. This will severely injure the Republican Party for a long time. It's not about which Republican is in office, although that has ancillary implications.

If Obama wins, the Democrats will not have that weapon, plus when the additional taxes kick in to pay for Obamacare (remember, those taxes are set to start in Obama's second term) it will be impossible to blame Romney when the economy declines even further since Romney won't be in office. Also the Republicans will have a weaker but still powerful tool of saying that Obama is still blaming Bush so many years later and that the new taxes are a cause for the second term economic hardships. They will contribute to a certain extent, but the main cause has been building for a long time so it's not attributable to Bush or Obama.

An Obama victory saves the Republicans from being blamed for what happens when Obama is in office.

It is tough for me to figure out which outcome I desire, and I don't desire the economic hardships that are fast approaching. If Romney wins, it may actually cause the Republican Party to fracture, and thus clear the way for an actual opposition party. That would be good for the country. On the other hand, if Romney wins then the collapse will be blamed on his free market beliefs even though he doesn't have any - which will basically be a replay of the blame heaped on Bush Jr, and also Herbert Hoover. On the one hand, getting rid of the Republicans would be a major potential benefit, although it is lower probability. On the other hand, it is a virtual certainty that the free market will be blamed if Romney wins even though the free market had no part of this mess.


You seem to think that the past matters much more to the populace than those shaping the message.

Have you noticed that neither party is referencing the rather dismal Bush II years? It is all "what have you done for me lately?" in US presidential politics.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Mon May 21, 2012 3:39 pm

Arvegil wrote:You seem to think that the past matters much more to the populace than those shaping the message.

Have you noticed that neither party is referencing the rather dismal Bush II years? It is all "what have you done for me lately?" in US presidential politics.


It is true that the average American voter has the attention span of a gnat, but if it follows as I predict there will be fresh events with which to play that rhetoric.

If Romney wins, his 2016 campaign will be plagued by the collapse under Romney, which is why referencing Bush II will work - the reference will be "Romney and Bush". If Obama wins, his attempts to blame Bush will fall flat for exactly the reason you state since the voter will only be remembering Obama.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby portia » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:12 am

Edwards was acquitted on a campaign law violation and the jury hung on the rest.

I am not surprised.

It was appropriate for him not to claim vindication, as he was shown to be as big a sleazeball as we thought, or bigger. But I thought the parts of the speech I heard were a bit much. John: You ain't such a major sinner as you seem to think. It was a sleazy little episode by someone who thought he was entitled to do anything, anytime. Even that is a pretty ordinary, and not such a remarkable sin. Don't build yourself up to be such a big deal of a sinner; you do not deserve it.

Go away; take care of the people who are still speaking to you and your 4-year old, innocent, daughter and let the rest of us have a rest from you.
Last edited by portia on Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby vison » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:50 am

His poor old parents looked as if they could die of shame.

The man is unspeakably low. A new depth created just for things like him.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Arvegil » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:40 am

vison wrote:His poor old parents looked as if they could die of shame.

The man is unspeakably low. A new depth created just for things like him.


Meh. Edwards, on his most ethically challenged day, probably hits right about Lyndon Johnson's average.

The difference being, of course, that Lyndon Johnson became a feared thug and fixer and managed to get things done, whereas Edwards is fated to end up next to Gary Hart on the refuse pile of wannabes.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby portia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:49 am

In a job like the Presidency, "getting things done," especially things that are generally thought of as good things, balances a lot of thuggery. In fact, the thuggery may be necessary for getting the good things done.

To quote myself, I think that it is pretty much necessary for an effective/good President to be a "ruthless S O B."



Edwards was/is blinded by his ego. He once, apparently, thought he was such hot stuff that he could carry on an affair in the middle of preparing to run for President, and suffer no consequences. Based on some of his comments, he now thinks of himself as some enormous, out of the ordinary, sinner. Wrong, both ways. He is a sinner of the most ordinary type, and stupid besides.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Arvegil » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:16 am

portia wrote:In a job like the Presidency, "getting things done," especially things that are generally thought of as good things, balances a lot of thuggery. In fact, the thuggery may be necessary for getting the good things done.

To quote myself, I think that it is pretty much necessary for an effective/good President to be a "ruthless S O B."



Edwards was/is blinded by his ego. He once, apparently, thought he was such hot stuff that he could carry on an affair in the middle of preparing to run for President, and suffer no consequences. Based on some of his comments, he now thinks of himself as some enormous, out of the ordinary, sinner. Wrong, both ways. He is a sinner of the most ordinary type, and stupid besides.


You actually raise a fascinating point about Edwards' psychology. At point A, he is invincible, and far above mortal concerns. At Point B, he is the lowest of the low, far lower than what mere mortals can attain.

Edwards wants his life to be a vast stage and played out like Gotterdammerung. His highs, and his lows, are both so vast that they transcend ordinary human experience. Perhaps the very ordinariness of his petty crimes is what he wants to run away from.

In that case, he should not have impregnated a campaign consultant. Perhaps someone like Anna Kournikova or Beyonce could have been the Helen of Troy to his Paris. Even Meghan McCain would have added a nice level of Wagnerian drama. It could have played out like "Tristan and Isolde" as re-imagined by John Waters.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:23 am

Arvegil wrote:Edwards wants his life to be a vast stage and played out like Gotterdammerung. .


But without all the cool costumes, staging and Leitmotifs...
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby vison » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:53 am

Arvegil, if you want to make that into a movie? I'd invest. :)
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Arvegil » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:10 am

vison wrote:Arvegil, if you want to make that into a movie? I'd invest. :)


Which part? Tristan and Isolde as re-imagined by John Waters? Or, the forbidden love between Beyonce and John Edwards?
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:44 am

Arvegil wrote:
vison wrote:Arvegil, if you want to make that into a movie? I'd invest. :)


Which part? Tristan and Isolde as re-imagined by John Waters? Or, the forbidden love between Beyonce and John Edwards?


Movie, nothing. This plot demands the grand opera treatment.

I don't know who would compose it, though...all the big, bombastic, over-blown composers are dead, it seems.

Can Edwards sing? He could play himself.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:23 pm

I haven't had time to listen to the news lately. Manwe is my news update!

Did the Fox News Headliner read, "Edwards Convicted!" ?
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby portia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:53 pm

Arvegil wrote:
You actually raise a fascinating point about Edwards' psychology. At point A, he is invincible, and far above mortal concerns. At Point B, he is the lowest of the low, far lower than what mere mortals can attain.

Edwards wants his life to be a vast stage and played out like Gotterdammerung. His highs, and his lows, are both so vast that they transcend ordinary human experience. Perhaps the very ordinariness of his petty crimes is what he wants to run away from.

In that case, he should not have impregnated a campaign consultant. Perhaps someone like Anna Kournikova or Beyonce could have been the Helen of Troy to his Paris. Even Meghan McCain would have added a nice level of Wagnerian drama. It could have played out like "Tristan and Isolde" as re-imagined by John Waters.


Assuming he could have convinced those women to have something to do with him, they would have been appropriate for his image of himself.. I think they, and others similar to them, are to media smart to get involved with him.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby portia » Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:51 pm

Ms. Hunter has written a book.

O, my. The word "shame seems to have been removed from the English language.

The only reason I would look at all favorably on Edwards spending time with Ms. Hunter is that his daughter needs her dad. But there really is no justification for their affair. They aren't randy teenagers. There is just no excuse.

We dodged a metaphorical bullet by finding out about this early in the campaign. The thought that the man might have been nominated is horrifying.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:50 am

Actually, if I remember correctly, we didn't find out about it until after he had been soundly defeated by Obama and Clinton, and was already out of the race.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner

 
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Previous

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest