Obama will fade.

[Justice Is Comin]

I saw it in Pelosi in her town meetings and media appearances prior to the election and I see it here.

First I have to say honestly and emphatically that I believe Edwards is the candidate to run the table November 7th. He has been in the court rooms taking on giant law firms with teams of lawyers who had monster size deep pockets and he backed them down into submission. This is in addition to his senatorial background and as Kerry's running mate where he was already thoroughly vetted . This can't be over emphasized.

He also has a family issue which could be potentially devastating to him which is openly public and their support for each other irregardless of this could not be more American spirit at its ultimate. But more important, it is something that could not be faked. John Edwards is genuine in his concern and passion and this maybe more than anything shows it. He does not wilt under pressure.

Obama in my opinion is a continent wide but an inch thick. He is a qualified key note speaker. But no way is he at the level where he should become the most powerful person on earth. Listen to his speeches. They are all happy feet speeches. He attempts to be all things to all people. They are speeches that any one of you or I could give if we wanted to say nothing but what people wanted to hear. Change, change, change, change...what candidate since George chopped down the cherry tree didn't say that "change" would be their mantra if elected? That word is going to become so tired by November it will be as meaningless as another Paris Hilton drunk driving story.

Obama is new and fresh to people right now because he is feeding the Garden of Eden to people who want to go there. This was borne out in Iowa. But mister and Ms. average America hear maybe 7-10 minutes of political news when they get home from work before they have to go to bed. And most of it is the major network newscast coverages, not cable. They do not satiate themselves with C-span or internet blogs like we do. Seeing his sound bites in short bursts, people think he has a little JFK flavor and seems to have what they like to hear. But people are just barely starting to pay attention.

I strongly feel that when critical examination starts of the substance in his speeches, which will get vastly more intense every month, people will start to say, you're giving me blue sky. Just how do you intend to do this with only a junior Senator background? How many world leaders are going to give deference to you as being our most qualified man in America to know the world? As the election window narrows, he will not have the position papers or the resume to answer that question.

I foresee also that as he is seen critically by the masses as their primary approaches, they will see a cockiness and a self adoring manner which will not wear well long term. You may not like me saying it, but it's true. He cocks his head back and makes facial expressions which show an air of arrogance. When he answers questions--especially if it's a pointed question-- he will try to massage it or talk in circles to not alienate anybody. He also outright lies. I heard him say several times, he's the only candidate that beats every republican. Bullshit. Outright lie.

The polls I saw show that Edwards is the one who trounces all republicans. Does he think people don't know that? Yes, he does. And as I said, Mr. and Mrs. average America, don't know that. Not yet. But more and more will learn of these false claims. It has not got hot in the kitchen for him yet. But as these primaries get closer and closer for each state, that scrutiny is going to chip away and that support will go South. They will see what they thought was a Rolex, was actually a Rolix. And they won't be buying one this year. When people realize this man will have the nuclear launch codes and be in possession of the highest government top secrets known to man, they will find they cannot have a president trainee.

Finally, something that I have not seen referenced by any posts here on DU further documents my personal intuitions. I could swear that Obama was on Meet the Press some time ago, but just as the 2008 presidential race was a viable topic for discussion. And he asked Obama several times if he was going to run for president. Obama flatly said no, he was going to serve his term as Senator and fulfill his obligation to the state of Illinois. I remember him asking it several different ways offering him a chance to qualify his answer. Obama kept to his firm statement. Russert asked Hillary the same question, but she fended it off and wouldn't box herself in. Russert tried his best to do it with her also but she wouldn't.

I bet anything this is going to come back and haunt Obama if he is the nominee, which for this election, I hope he isn't. If he is, I will touch the screen by his name. But this is going to be shown as an abandonment of his commitment to the people of Illinois. I can see the commercials now with the cut in's of his appearance with Russert. He said he would faithfully and foremost, fulfill his full term as senator for the state of Illinois putting aside any Presidential aspirations. But now he's renegged on that promise and is running for President. If he can't even tell the truth to the people of his home state of Illinois, how are we to trust him as our President? This is not going to look good. And it fits in with so many of the other telltale signs that I see. Signs that do not bode well for the long term. A diamond is not made overnight and Obama will find that out.

Edwards is a genuine Rolex and I'm hoping that we don't have to find that out the hard way.

[MalloyLiberal]

1. But...but...Edwards voted for the war.....and has a big house...

Expect people to start attacking you soon.

[Nick_Irving]

21. Edwards Unelectable

Edwards supports war.

Attention Democrat Voters: Who's Electable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNdQUVA5JHs

[sendero]

33. If I removed 3/4 of my brain..

... I would still find this thing laughable.

[waiting for hope]

41. That's the fourth post of the

exact same sentiment I've seen from him - just signed up ... today! Go figure.

[Jim Sagle]

45. Whadda crocka chickenshit bullshit.

[Blarch]

26. worse than that.

Edwards knew Bush was lying to the people, he knew the intel didn't match Bush's words.

And STILL voted for the war...and didn't even bother to read the NIE before the vote, the only person on the committee to do so...repub or dem.

Judgment ? ...what judgment ?

[Skittles]

42. it is not trivial

to question the judgement of someone who not only voted for but CO-SPONSORED that piece of SHIT IWR.

[donheld]

2. So you think he will fade into a white guy?

:D

[cali]

3. what is this devastating family secret that will blow him away?

Put up or shut up.

As for the rest of your post, it's pathetic. Opinion with very little to back it up. YOU see Obama as arrogant and cocky. I see Edwards that way. You see Obama as untested. I don't. You see Edwards as someone who's walked the walk. So do I. Walked the walk of a conservative Senator and war cheerleader. Walked the walk of a hypocrite with his questionable investments and his bad judgment.

[Two Americas]

5. not Obama

The devastating family thing was referring to Edwards, not Obama.

Otherwise, I agree that the swipes at Obama herer are not very well founded and are conjecture and opinion, and much of the criticism applies as much or more so to other candidates. Not the worst candidate bashing, but still...

[cali]

8. How can you tell?

The OP's execrable writing skills are such that it's hard to tell what the fuck he's trying to say. Here are the first three paragraphs:

I saw it in Pelosi in her town meetings and media appearances prior to the election and I see it here.

First I have to say honestly and emphatically that I believe Edwards is the candidate to run the table November 7th. He has been in the court rooms taking on giant law firms with teams of lawyers who had monster size deep pockets and he backed them down into submission. This is in addition to his senatorial background and as Kerry's running mate where he was already thoroughly vetted . This can't be over emphasized.

He also has a family issue which could be potentially devastating to him which is openly public and their support for each other irregardless of this could not be more American spirit at its ultimate. But more important, it is something that could not be faked. John Edwards is genuine in his concern and passion and this maybe more than anything shows it. He does not wilt under pressure.

That third paragraph would get an F from any 8th grade English teacher, but it looks to me that he's referring to Obama.

[Two Americas]

10. pretty clear

Edwards is the candidate to run the table November 7th. He has been in the court rooms taking on giant law firms with teams of lawyers who had monster size deep pockets and he backed them down into submission. This is in addition to his senatorial background and as Kerry's running mate where he was already thoroughly vetted. This can't be over emphasized.

He also has a family issue which could be potentially devastating to him....

I assume that the OP is referrring back to "Edwards" with each of his subsequent pronouns. I know that the "potentially devestating" thing sounds like the threat of a scandal emerging, but that is followed by "which is openly public and their support for each other irregardless of this could not be more American spirit at its ultimate" which seems to be referring to Elizabeth's struggle with cancer.

BUT, irregardless.... lol.

[Eurobabe]

15. Irregardless? Back to 3rd grade with you!!

God I HATE IT WHEN people use that word. It doesn't exist, except in the Chimp's vocabulary.

Another Child Left Behind.

:rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. ...

:spray:

[EOTE]

32. Actually, it is.

It may be nonstandard and controversial, but it's been slowly working its way into our lexicon for more than a hundred years now and is very much a real word. It means the exact same thing as regardless. Much like flammable/inflammable.

[tkmorris]

20. A bit over the top, aren't you Cali?

I mean, I get it, you are upset that he is suggesting Obama will fade. For this reason, you are just SLAMMING anything you can find in the post to criticize. Ok, that's pretty biased and loses credibility because it is, but ok anyway. You like Obama and you're miffed. Cool.

Here's the thing though. DU is chock full of posters who aren't English majors, and quite frankly couldn't write a warning label for toothpaste. If they are pro-Obama though somehow you are magnanimous enough to see through to the heart of what they MEAN, without using words like "execrable", or giving him an "F". What's up with that?

[Common Sense Party]

4. Wasn't Edwards just a junior senator when he first ran for President?

Some of your other points are valid, but experience...? A one-term senator?

[Mr_King]

11. Technically...

Edwards was the senior senator in 2003-2005. Satan...oh excuse me...Jesse Helms didn't run again in 2002 and Elizabeth Dole won his seat. So Edwards was the the senior senator from North Carolina in 2004.

[Pastiche423]

40. He wasn't even in the senate in 2005

Duh!

[Mr_King]

55. Ummm yes he was....

John Edwards last day in the Senate was January 3, 2005. Officially his term was January 6, 1999 – January 3, 2005.

[D23MIURG23]

46. That comparison is unfair to the fallen one! n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

6. It sounds like you're hoping he'll fade, rather knowing he will.

Which I can understand, I wanted the same thing to happen to Kerry in 2004. I remember hoping he'd fade, but deep down I knew it wasn't likely after he won New Hampshire. I think if you look deep down, you too will realize if Obama takes New Hampshire, it isn't likely he'll fade, either.

But if the biggest knock on Obama is the fact he said he wouldn't run for president -- something that obviously hasn't upset too many people from Illinois, then I think we're in good hands.

[MS Liberal]

7. Glad you like Edwards; I prefer Hillary.

I sincerely hope things improve for us in NH. Sadly if the media have their way, the election will continue to be a popularity contest instead of who will be the best POTUS.

Hillary is definitely not popular but she can get the job done. Edwards is going nowhere fast because Obama has co-opted his best messages. The media has decided that Obama, the African-American who is not even a descendant of slaves, is a better "narrative" than "poor white boy who got rich and want to help the poor."

Good luck to you. It is so sad, I am afraid America is once again going to elect who is popular over who has the experience to get the job done.

God save us all.

[Justice Is Comin]

9. Hillary will bring out every republican

old enough to vote and just enough brains to find the polling place to vote against her. The young voters will be staying home playing with their X-boxes on election day and she will be lucky if she gets even 40% of the independents.

Bill yes. Hillary has been all over the board with her positions and that's common knowledge already. That's before the Swiftboating even starts. I will be peeking through my fingers at my tv screen election night if she's our candidate.

[joshcryer]

17. So Hillary will be good for democracy? Good!

:)

[TomClash]

18. His message?

This is Obama's life - you can read about it in a book he wrote - in 1995.

[weeve]

12. Great Post !!

I was in D.C last month, and visited the senate in session. That's exactly how Obama came off to me -cocky and somewhat full of himself ... strutting around like he owned the place. Who knows, maybe that's just his style, but it definitely put me off. ( For the record, Whitehouse and Klobuchar came off the best? )

I worry the Corporate Media who got rid of the last election's Populist (Dean), and are trying to do the same with Edwards right now ( WHO came in second again in Iowa ?!? ). They'll continue to shout about how the youth have never been more motivated to vote for change blah blah blah (as in 2004), and then when the Democrat loses they'll marvel at the huge Evangelical turnout, or how racism is unfortunately still alive in America. Mark my words.

I suspect though that the huge Media build-up for Obama is precisely because he really ISN'T a major agent of change ( hence their repeating that he IS , pretty much non-stop ). They'd prefer the Republican , but they'll gladly settle for Obama (or Hillary).

But why should WE settle, just because they want us to? Which is why I'm donating to John Edwards !!

[Justice Is Comin]

14. Yup, and I think the Iowa turnout

of so many young people for Obama was because they are looking at him like a football coach giving a "let's get out there and win" speech.

They are new to this process and that energized them. But even those younger people will start to realize as he starts getting challenged on every statement, that all his speeches are feel-good generalities. Combine that with nothing but mostly state level experience, coming out with a health care plan only after John Edwards put his out and that arrogance that is not going to play well for ten months and I believe his Iowa fortunes will change. I believe that "novelty" and those Martin Luther King flashbacks are going to be rejected in favor of someone else.

I'm on record and I'm sticking to it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Big ego and not much else, IMHO.

I'm not letting the corporate owned media pick my candidate for me! Go John! :bounce:

[earthlover]

13. "Edwards is a genuine Rolex ..." I thought he was the son of a mill worker

How many Rolexes in the old mill?

[Eurobabe]

16. Maybe Edwards wears a genuine Rolex?

That son of a millworker!!

[stickernation]

51. did you see Edwards' dad at the debate ?

That dude was DEFINITELY the real deal.

NC's economy was a victim of that "giant sucking sound" too.

as bad as working in the mill 7 shifts a week must have been, today's NC kids have just about nothing at all to produce :(

[AzDar]

19. K & R...

Go, Johnny, GO!!

[mnhtnbb]

22. I picked up Obama's arrogance from reading his book, "The Audacity of Hope"

Every paragraph started with "I". Sooner or later--and I hope it's sooner for Dem's sake--people are going to figure this out. We don't need another cocky, arrogant, in the image of Bush, President!

[Prefer]

24. Clinton also full of "I"s

I noticed in her speech the other night.

Edwards is all "we"

[Berry Cool]

23. I have issues with this statement:

"He also has a family issue which could be potentially devastating to him which is openly public and their support for each other irregardless of this could not be more American spirit at its ultimate."

(and no, it's not just the use of "irregardless")

1. "Could be potentially devastating to HIM"? How about his wife? She's the one who actually has the disease. While he is affected profoundly, he is affected in only a secondary way. SHE is the one to whom this "family issue" is "potentially devastating" in the truest sense of the word.

2. Are we giving candidates brownie points now because their wives are dealing with cancer? I have as much admiration for how the Edwardes are handling this as anyone can, but to imply that their support for each other in this situation somehow makes them better than other candidates who are not confronting the situation makes no sense. We have no proof that the other candidates would not have an equally mutually supportive relationship with their spouses if their spouses had the same type of illness.

A disease is a disease. Let's not turn it into a political point-earner.

3. Is the fact that a husband and wife mutually support each other--one in his candidacy for public office and the other in her fight against a deadly disease--exemplary of "the American spirit at its ultimate"? I certainly hope not. I would like to think married couples that mutually supportive can be found in Canada, Mexico, South Africa, France, Poland, wherever. I don't see what is so particularly "American spirit" about supporting your spouse when your spouse wants to run for public office, nor when your spouse is seriously ill. I would hope it would be exemplary of what it is to be a committed marriage partner--not exemplary of what it is to be an American.

I am not a shill for any of the candidates. I can find things to like in all of them. And I greatly admire how the Edwardses are conducting themselves on the whole. But I don't think Elizabeth Edwards' cancer should be exploited for political purposes or used as a way to hold John above other candidates as something "better" because he didn't abandon his wife when she had a recurrence or because the other candidates' spouses are not ill.

The old marriage vows say something about "in sickness and in health." That's the minimum one expects of a spouse. He doesn't get a halo for it.

[baby_mouse]

28. IRRESPECTIVE or REGARDLESS.

There is no word "irregardless".

[TeddyKGB]

29. "The polls I saw show that Edwards is the one who trounces all republicans."

You're obviously reading the polls you want to read.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

30. maybe one day you will enlighten the befuddled masses

with your wisdom. or maybe you're not as smart as you think.

you're criticizing him for style over substance in his speeches - do you really think that's an accident? you think Obama is a blubbering idiot who doesn't know policy? no, he is deliberating orating in this fashion because it is effective, as evidenced by his relatively large win in Iowa. he speaks in an engaging manner and people respond. would it be better to drone on and on about trade deficits or farm subsidy policy? ask Gore and Kerry how that worked out for them.

and your criticism about him denying his intentions to run is laughable. close to 99% of presidential candidates have denied a run at some point. why are you singling out Obama, besides the fact you don't like him?

[Downtown Hound]

31. I like Edwards too, but Obama ain't going nowhere

Obama has the ability to fire people up and make them believe. If you learned nothing else from Kennedy and Clinton, you should have learned how far that ability can take one in politics. By contrast, all of the Republican candidates with the slight exception of Romney appear wooden, tired, and simply dull. Obama's speaking ability will be a serious force for them to reckon with. And as for the Democrats, this is what we have:

Hillary-tough, smart, but viewed negatively by the right because she's too liberal and the left because she's too conservative. Sorry, but if she can't even pull off a win in Iowa that she had all but locked up several months ago, she's going to really have a tough time winning The White House. At the end of the day, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, she is simply viewed too negatively by too many people, and for those of you that don't believe that, I think the Iowa results back that up pretty well.

Edwards-decent guy, bright guy, and even though he's loaded, I really believe he understands the serious problem of poverty in America and has the best ideas on how to combat it. I think he'd be a great president. But, and I hate to say it, he's a little dull. Like it or not, Americans often cast their vote based on personality. We're a shallow people. Look at who our celebrities are: Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan. That was one of the problems the Kerry/Edwards team had in 2004, a perceived lack of charisma. And I think that hurt him far more than the Swift Boat Liars ever did. Well, that and Diebold anyway. Bush, fuck up extraordinarie, even back them, appeared down home and animated. Kerry, who's ideas were always about ten steps ahead of Bush's, appeared more like a college professor giving a lecture. Bush was the guy talking about football. Americans have a tendency to choose football over KQED. It still holds true today. Edwards could very well win if he gets the nomination, but I think it would be very close.

Obama, on the other hand, has charisma coming out his butt. My belief is that Obama would predominately govern from the center if elected, much like Clinton would, and much more so than Edwards. But if Obama keeps making speeches like he did the other night, and those get played against the boring, stale, gasbag speeches of these current Republicans, then we might very likely be in for a sweep in November. I haven't seen a Democrat with his gift for gab in a long time, maybe since Bill was last in the White House. Don't ever underestimate that ability, and don't for a minute think he's going to fade anytime soon.

[kurth]

34. Obama is a shallow opportunist that corporate execs can do business with

[krabigirl]

35. Yep.

[LooseWilly]

48. Huh?

Uhh, I've never gotten that impression... if anything, HRC is the candidate that corporations can do business with in this campaign. Please, enlighten me as to where I've gone wrong in my assessment...

[2hip]

47. OOOOOhhhhhhh............

I like you! Come sit by me!





  Edwards '08 tees!

[krabigirl]

36. I kind of see it as him pandering to a dumbed-down America.

Just keep saying "hope," change," "unity" and other meaningless, unsupported sound bytes, and people will flock to you in droves. Oh, and look good in a suit.

It's sad, because he's obviously very intelligent. Hmm, maybe that's why he knows that this strategy works? Still, i think it will backfire come November.

[LooseWilly]

52. Do you know what hope is?...

It occurred to me when responding to another post that, despite it being just another key-word, hope is something else.

Hope is what I have that things might actually change at some point.

Mind you, I'm too cynical to hold my breath... but given that the Republicans are in shambles (or, do you think they're a grave threat with their candidates that no majority of even thems likes... and yes, I know that sounds poor grammatically, but it's the only way to construct a sentence that has the right sound for their flailing...), well... I think whatever Demo wins the primary has a better then easy chance of winning the presidency.

So who the hell are you advocating? John Edwards as a saint, as opposed to Barack Obama... with his "meaningless, unsopported sound bytes"? Or... Clinton, the voice of moderation?
Obama's discussions of policy and whatnot, as far as I can tell (I'm sure you'll provide detailed rebuttals, when the time comes) are at least as detailed and feasible as anything John Edwards has to provide... which is why I think either one of them would be equally to my taste... the only real difference between them (and this, I think, is part of the reason they seemed to be double teaming HRC in the debates) is the point of view from which they are approaching these issues.
Clinton, on the other hand, has been burned once facing down the powers that be, and doesn't seem to have much nerve left to face another showdown. Rather, she seems interested in making what changes she can in a spirit of Bon Homie (My French is awful, but I know there's an expression that I've probably butchered in the attempt to quote it... make fun of my French all you want... Gods know I've made fun of the English and Spanish skills of the French often enough to deserve it...)

The notion that Obama's calls for "hope" and "change" and "unity" are meaningless suggest many things, mostly about you, Krabigirl, in my opinion... not so much that he's pandering to a dumbed down America, but rather that you're too krabi to get it... and if you're that krabi, by all means vote for Clinton. She's not a bad candidate... but some of us liberal freaks from the left wing of the party (what'm I saying... I'm actually so left-wing, I'm not even willing to become moderate enough to join the Democratic party...) aren't willing to give in.
It's not a matter of dumbed down. It's a matter of super-cynical unwillingness to yield to right-leaning moderation. So super-cynical we go wrapping around the cynical spectrum all the way to... hope.

So, if anyone's so cynical about the establishment that they've gone through the looking glass... as I have... far enough to actually be willing to throw their vote away on something as absurd as hope that there can be change, well Obama's there for the voting. Or Edwards. They're both just canvassing out there in "Wonderland"...

If not, well, consider Richardson. At least he has "Executive Experience".

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Whistling past the graveyard...

[IowaGuy]

38. You are right about Edwards, wrong on Obama....

Edwards is everything you say he is.
Your problem with Obama re: your recollection of a Tim Russert moment is, with all due respect, pretty weak. Assuming it's true it's about 5 minutes of media time in the next 10 months.

Edwards big problem doesn't have to do with him as a candidate, his qualities or positions. It doesn't even have to do with any other candidates qualities - most of whom on the DEM side are considerable to say the least.
His problem is self-inflicted and will be fatal. He opted in to take Federal matching funds in public financing for his campaign. Since he did this, he has to follow rules for how much he is allowed to spend between now and August 28th (when the National Dem convention is). He is allowed to spend a maximum of something less than 50 million dollars total between now and then. No other candidate, on the DEM side or the Repug side is limited in such a way. It doesn't matter how much he collects between now and then.....that's all he can spend according to Federal law. Assuming he could weather the onslaught from both Hillarys and Obama's bank accounts and become the presumptive nominee, he'll have to go about 6 months for all practical purposes, nearly broke. He'll be getting framed, slimed, Swift-boated and everything else by the Repugs in that time and will have no way to respond or defend himself. He won't even be able to fight for himself, much less for us. He probably won't even be able to cover Joe Trippi's bar tab. This would not be a good thing for DEMS farther down on the ticket.

It was atrocious advice that his advisor's gave him to opt in for that, he is so screwed now, but I suppose they'll still get their paychecks....

[JFN1]

39. I couldn't agree more.

Well said.

[Colobo]

43. Fade? He'll be our next president. Get used to him.

[ngant17]

53. This cracker's for Obama

I am a 'pure-bred' cracker from Florida and I'm gonna vote for Obama when I get the chance. I am independent NPA but I would vote in a Dem. caucus if possible.

The more I read about Obama's gains in each caucus, the more convinced I am that he's my candidate for POTUS.

Haven't actually read all of his policy statements, but I really don't have to, because the fact that he is already irritating to so many posters, who are desperately pushing an Edwards or Clinton campaign in every post they make, it already shows to me that Obama is the best person to run the country. Generally, the Obama supporters on DU don't push Obama in every sentence of every post they make, they'll let him stand on his own public statement without the additional advertising.

Bottom line: Edwards screwed up with the IWR. Bad cracker, go back to your 'right to work (for less)' state of NC. Hillary screwed up the the IWR. Bad girl, go home and sit this one out, puhleeze!

IWR. That's the litmus test for me. Compared to Obama, the other 2 are detestable to me. Because of the IWR, these people didn't care that millions of innocent 3rd world civilians, mostly Iraqi civilians, would be caught in the crossfires of an illegal, unjustified invasion/occupation. And the blood of those innnocents are on their hands, not Obama's. Voting for the IWR was the same as pointing a loaded gun at the Iraqi people and pulling the trigger. It was more than a piece of paper printed out in the Congressional Record, because you can't erase that vote with a pencil. The damage that was done is irreversible.
--------------------------------------------
"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now."
Obama, Iowa speech, September, 2007.

[kid a]

44. bullshit...

how can you seriously (and expect to be taken serious) call Obama a liar for a prediction???

that doesn't make sense and shows your inexperience.

[D23MIURG23]

49. Because it was a prediction of his own behaviour...

And he chose whether it was true or not?

:shrug:

Makes sense to me.

We are talking about him on "meet the press" right?

[Justice Is Comin]

50. No,

I'm saying that, in Iowa, I heard him say at least twice that he was the only candidate that beats every republican.

That was a flat lie which he knew was untrue but he milked it and amused himself with his arrogance in his self adulating way. Knowing they would buy it.

[Lord Helmet]

54. Edwards and Hillary voted for the war and people aren't going to just forget