This whining about Edwards not getting attention in the media is absurd. Only what, 10-15% of DEMOCRATS care about Edwards as a candidate now, even though he was very high-profile in 2004 and has very high name recognition.
I think its pretty clear: the media isn't paying attention to him because PEOPLE aren't paying attention to him. Not the other way around.
Its June 07, not January 08, when the polls will really count for something. If you really expect this election to look in January the way it does now, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
What this information also could speak to is that Hillary has an anemic following amongst the most dedicated of activists. I'd rather be the candidate with legions of young, dedicated followers who are willing to work for free than the one that gets by on what people remember from the 90's.
One of the fearsome 6% of MyDD Hillary supporters really unleases here...great comment, man. Your editorials are really brilliant. Adds a lot to the discussion. You get a 2 out of three for making me laugh.
The interesting thing about Clinton is that after Bush, the 90's look like great times by comparison. What we, and the public, needs to be reminded of is that we can do better than the Clinton-era. Less political division, more progressive solutions, and less scandal.
I know you're the biggest Clinton hater here, and I don't really like her either. What really gets me is, that if she actually does with the Presidency, the political atmosphere in this country will be so toxic that I and many others will probably stop paying attention. It was sickening in the late 90's and I couldn't imagine that with Hillary it will be any better.
Democrats have been told that Hillary is their best candidate for years now, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that she's the early frontrunner. But one only has to look at previous campaigns to see that they don't always work out they way it looks like they are going to.
I'll give you that I questioned your ability to read when you interpreted from my statement that I thought you were a Clinton supporter...not the worst thing in the world; though I'd understand if you found that offensive.
Here is where you skew horribly wrong:
but then you complimented me on my youthfulness by ending it with "young'n
Your assumption here is that have said that I complimented you on your youthfulness rather than hurling an insult, as though I believe you possess a certain juvenile quality.
This is not so. When engaging in word battles I'll customarily take playful jabs with inappropriate(often obtusely so) slang, the same way I would with friends. I don't consider you a friend, though the lighthearted(as I saw it)nature of the conversation led me to think that I would not offend you, as you had(I choose to believe) playfully questioned my intelligence by throwing in the word 'genius' before.
Who said it was an insult? I've no need to insult you...while your postings are basically carbon copies of previous posts by other users, nothing you say is worthy of a personal insult.
You're making too many assumptions, me thinks. Is this is how low you're willing to go to keep this thread going. If I weren't REALLY freakin' bored here at work I'd have given this up a long time ago.
There is a good chance that Obama's campaign just hasn't 'gotten around to' counting some of the later donations...in reality they may already be over 350,000 donations and are just purposely putting a reachable goal out there.
Which is fine with me. These are awesome numbers. Awesome.