It was a busy night here at My Sick Headquarters. There were two NFL playoff games and a political debate mixed in with some more Ebola selling, which made for lots of channel surfing and Internet clicking. I'm exhausted.
The Redskins continue to disappoint, and now they have the rest of the winter and spring to contemplate their issues. Meanwhile, in Pittsburgh, the home team snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, so those who figured that Jacksonville was the team who could beat the Patriots may have their chance next week.
The instant replay has almost ruined football for me. There are too many challenges, and I think that referees lean on the challenge to allow them to make rulings on the field that they figure will either be challenged or not. Would you watch something closely if you knew that it would be replayed on a big screen in the stadium? No. The coaches have the benefit of the replay, and their cohorts in the press level tell them whether or not they should throw that red flag. It slows down the game and I don't think the plays are any more accurately called than they were 10 years ago when referees had to rely on their judgement and eyesight.I'd like to have a few of those red flags to throw in my personal life. There are quite a few "rulings on the field" that I think deserve further review.
On the political front, I didn't pay much attention to the Republicans, and I encourage you to do the same. They look like a bunch of guys who would vote to keep me out of their country club. ABC televised the debates that featured both parties' candidates. A huge group of Republicans, followed by the four leading Democrats - Edwards, Obama, Richardson and Clinton. They did their best to exclude Bill Richardson, and the crowd shots featured several looks at Elizabeth Edwards and the Edwards family, along with Chelsea Clinton. No sign of Bill.
As it is with these things, I am left more confused than I was initially. John Edwards harped on his family of mill workers and pledged to fight for the middle class - whoever they are. Hillary and Obama sniped at each other and Richardson was left with the scraps, and one would figure that his run will end on February 5 when the phenomenon known as Super Tuesday will pare the group down to three.
As for me, I'm waffling between Edwards and Clinton with the majority of my waffle devoted to John Edwards. I have a month to decide.
12 comments:
I predict that the MSM will go after the John Edwards - Rielle Hunter love affair story (with baby in oven now!) ONLY if he looks to be the nominee.
The MSM would prefer to just ignore any sex scandal of a politician (Democrat, that is), but they may have to cover the story when Ms. Hunter puts John Edwards on the birth certificate as the father. Under some state laws, it's the birth certificate that counts for child support, if the "birth father" does not contest it.
Once Rielle Hunter determines that it would be much easier to get child support if John Edwards is listed on the birth certificate, I think that Ms. Hunter will let the story out. She knows about John Edwards' fortune and she want it!!
So, what's this mean? It's my opinion that Rielle Hunter's life could be in danger. John Edwards would do anything to shut her up (and to prevent that baby from being born.) God help her.
With the number of TV cameras covering your average football game, it's a wonder anything can be contested. I do like, however, that camera that is suspended over the field of play. They tried that in the NHL once or twice but the play on the ice was far to quick for the camera to follow.
Anyone have anything to add to anonymous' comment?
If I had a waffle, I'd share it with Hilary.
Just sayin'.
Whoa. I didn't read the comment til just now...and holy smokes.
I never heard about any of that....
I'm gonna have to Google this. This is definitely worth looking into. Not that he was going to get my vote-he's too righteous for me. But still, if this is true what ANON says-this is like "the pot callin' the kettle black" as my momma always said.
Okay I've read a few articles. First reaction is...seeing the news broke with The Enquirer I'm a little skeptical, but I'm sure somewhere in that organization there are some credible journalists...I think.
Anyways, this article cracked me up. [well, the comments did]
http://wonkette.com/politics/nooky-report/e+mails-may-reveal-john-edwards-had-affair-327888.php
There are always nutbars waiting to come out of the shadows looking for a little attention.
I'm with Kim, I never heard of that scandal. Now, I gotta go google it. Sheesh...
But I do waffle like you Anthony. Clinton and Edwards.
I read the link Kim gave us. All I can say about that is even if any candidate had an affair or not, I'd rather have a President that screwed another person than their entire military by sending 3,000+ to their deaths for lies and personal greed. Who cares what any candidate does in their personal life as long as they aren't mainlining heroin every 5 minutes? Sheesh. Fucking puritan warmongers that's who.
I've be all over the place with the candidates. I started with Obama, then Edwards, then Richardson, then Kucinich (who is my dream candidate but in this corrupt media environment he doesn't have a prayer), then back to Edwards. And now I'm come full circle and am settled on Obama.
I just think he looks so presidential and I'm really all about change this time. I really don't want to see another Clinton in the Whitehouse. Having the Bush-Clinton dynasty just doesn't quite settle well with me. Besides, I don't really like Clinton as a person. I know all politicians are like this to one degree or another but she really seems conniving, opportunistic, insincere and a bit too arrogant for my taste.
I like how Obama carries himself. He seems very sincere, confident and full of the hope that we all need so desperately after Bush. He would bring many fresh faces hopefully into his cabinet and administration so that we aren't just recycling the same cast of characters.
People say he doesn't have enough experience but I think he has innate experience in his character that will give him sound judgment. Then there is the fact that Lincoln and JFK didn't have much experience either. Yet they were two of our greatest presidents.
In fact, I looked into Lincoln's history a bit while making a post on my political blog about Obama and discovered that they have had so far a very similar political career.
The other issue about experience is that he will surround himself with others in his cabinet that will have tons of experience in all fields.
I like the fact too that he will show that America is turning over a new leaf, that we are back and ready to get along with the rest of the world again. I can see him getting things done with other presidents/PM's better than Clinton or Edwards personally. This is because he has such a disarming and pleasant, charming, compromising nature.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to back Obama but I just thought that I'd talk about who I am supporting--and why.
I think that Obama is the next best thing to Edwards. Edwards said that he and Obama have a lot in common. The think I like about Edwards is the populist message and Obama is picking that up with ease. I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.
I guess in the debate last night Edwards went after Hillary instead of Obama? That makes me think that they might be cooking up a deal--Obama and Edwards.
It sure is an exciting time to be a Democrat/Independent!!
As for the tabloid Edwards story, I'll believe when I see more proof. Sounds like hatchet job to me.
Man I slaughtered that last comment. Let's try this again:
As for the tabloid Edwards story, I'll believe it when I see more proof. It sounds like a hatchet job to me.
Post a Comment