If Obama wins the nomination, we'll have enough people -- two: Geraldine Ferraro and Joe Lieberman -- to start a new organization called LDVPNAO: Losing Democratic Vice Presidential Nominees Against Obama.
I know John Edwards won't join, and Lloyd Bentsen died a couple of years ago. That leaves only Governor Arnold's father-in-law, Sargent Shriver, but he is 93 and has advanced Alzheimer's disease, so he is probably out, too.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 31, 2008 08:42 AM | Email ThisThere may be some sour grapes, but these will suppress their rage until after November.
Those who desert the ship will be marginalized like the Naderites were in 2004. I doubt any prominent Dems will participate.
Posted by: deadwood on May 31, 2008 09:11 AMthese were the idiots that you all supported with so much fervor.
"George W. Bush brought most of his White House team with him from Texas. Except for Karl Rove, these Texans were a strikingly inadequate bunch. Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes, Al Hawkins, Andy Card (the last not a Texan, but a lifelong Bush family retainer) -- they were more like characters from The Office than the sort of people one would expect to find at the supreme height of government in the world's most powerful nation.
McClellan, too, started in Bush's governor's office, and if he never belonged to the innermost circle of power, he nonetheless gained closer proximity than would be available to almost anyone who did not first serve in Texas. That early team was recruited with one paramount consideration in mind: loyalty. Theoretically, it should be possible to combine loyalty with talent. But that did not happen often with the Bush team," - David Frum, National Post.
We already KNOW that Lieberman supports McCain, and he won't join the Democrats (but he is already marginalized by the Dems). We don't know what Ferraro will do, and I wasn't predicting what she would do, I was only inviting her to join the exclusive group. :-)
Posted by: pudge on May 31, 2008 09:57 AMPlease stick the topic, mmmkay? There's a nice lad.
Posted by: pudge on May 31, 2008 10:01 AMI am just bringing this up as a related sidebar.
Posted by: KS on May 31, 2008 10:04 AMAs for the "topic," it appears lacking in material for discussion.
Posted by: Daddy Love on May 31, 2008 10:30 AMnow that i'm here, i must say i find it hilarious that sp has become obama-central. it seems that sp has more posts about the dems/obama than any type of post re mccain.
regardless of the 'elites' who do/don't support obama, last time i checked, 1 person 1 vote is still the order of the day, and obama has created a lot of voter interest as measured by turnout in the dem primaries. i am more interested in those numbers than elite commentary.
dinesh: isn't that a criticism that would be better levied against the mass media itself, rather than lil' ol' Sound Politics? And yes, obviously, Ferarro and Lieberman opposing Obama doesn't give the election to McCain. Duh. So what? If you don't care about their opposition, then why bother commenting?
Posted by: pudge on May 31, 2008 11:34 AMWhy? if he's your candidate, don't you want to know more about him? Or is his website all you need to make an informed decision? What are the Obamaphiles afraid of?
Maybe a little reality setting in?
WTF Homer, you couldn't make this stuff up and use it as a story line in a sitcom, it's that far out, not to mention objectionable.
It is so far out it isn't even humerus to me any longer, it is tragic and pathetic that a person who will win the Democrat nomination could even associated with this nonsense on the periphery and this Obama and his nut-jar wife are totally immersed in it.
Posted by: JDH on May 31, 2008 01:12 PMAnyway, my comment on the post is that it is the mere recital of a trivial fact. It says little of any real interest, and takes no point of view. You could learn from your brothers on talk radio that you get more response from a strong and controversial point of view. Perhaps that's why Horse's Ass has so much more traffic than this backwater.
And let's point out in the interest of calling a spade a spade that John Edwards has fully endorsed Senator Obama as the next Democratic nominee. You may feel that it is not worth mentioning, but it does make the snark of your post (if any) somewhat weaker to actually say it.
Posted by: Daddy Love on May 31, 2008 01:18 PMIt's only humerus if you have a well-developed sense of femur.
Posted by: Daddy Love on May 31, 2008 01:27 PMEdward's endoresement holds no sway with the American electorate as most see through his used car salesman persona and dismiss him accordingly. Only the Donkey's over at HA regard him with any substance, the rest of us in the real world view him in his true to life form....Jethro Bodine in a tailored suit.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 31, 2008 01:49 PMWhat is your opinion of Geraldine Ferraro Daddy Love? Now that you've done the liberal math calculation that race trumps gender, does she get thrown under the bus by liberals like the rest of your fellow travelers have done?
It says little of any real interest, and takes no point of view
Yes, intentionally. You say this as though it is a bad thing. It's not. Not everything has to be opinionated or deeply meaningful.
you get more response from a strong and controversial point of view
If I wanted to take a controversial point of view just to attract an audience, I could that, quite easily. I intentionally do not do that. I write exactly what I find to be funny, or interesting. Nothing more or less. Sometimes others agree that it is funny or interesting, and sometimes they don't. I couldn't really care less either way.
It's the difference between Bill O'Reilly and Jim Lehrer. I watch the latter, and eschew the former, because I prefer being informed rather than being stirred up for the sake of someone else's ratings.
Perhaps that's why Horse's Ass has so much more traffic than this backwater.
Shrug. I have no idea of the relative traffic to each, and I am fairly certain you don't, either. Regardless, if HA does get more traffic by being intentionally controversial just to attract an audience, as Bill O'Reilly does, then that is to its discredit, in my opinion. And I believe the same goes for all the Sound Politics writers: it is very rare that I see something posted that is designed just to attract an audience; we post what we find to be interesting or amusing in some way.
And let's point out in the interest of calling a spade a spade that John Edwards has fully endorsed Senator Obama as the next Democratic nominee. You may feel that it is not worth mentioning, but it does make the snark of your post (if any) somewhat weaker to actually say it.
Um. I don't assume my readers are idiots. I said "I know John Edwards won't join," and the obvious implication to every single person reading the post is "because he has endorsed Obama." I also did not explain any details about Ferarro or Lieberman being against Obama, because, again, I don't assume my readers are idiots.
Posted by: pudge on May 31, 2008 04:52 PMGo B-Uh-rack OBam-uh...
Will uh, Hillary, uh, be the Vice uh, president?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 31, 2008 04:54 PMPorn sites have more traffic that the equine anal blog, so what?
People here actually present facts (well not the liberals though) and cogent arguments while the scum on the other blog you mentioned simply reply with some variation of ad hominem attacks themed on defecation or intercourse.
I prefer the adults here.
Posted by: pbj on May 31, 2008 05:55 PMHow about a thread on how the hypocritical Democrat party goes on and on about voter disenfranchisement and turns around disenfranchises them in Florida and Missouri.
The Democrat party . Can we get a thread? Hello, is this thing on????
Posted by: pbj on May 31, 2008 06:16 PMHow about a thread on how the hypocritical Democrat party goes on and on about voter disenfranchisement and turns around disenfranchises them in Florida and Missouri.
The Democrat party disenfrachises women. Can we get a thread? Hello, is this thing on????
Posted by: pbj on May 31, 2008 06:22 PMI do not believe that HA gets more traffic than SP. I remember hearing about a year ago that SP received more than twice as many hits as HA. Unless things have changed dramatically and I'd be surprise that they have, SP is still more widely accessed than HA. Could it be that Daddy Love is trying to perpetuate the lie even though he know it is a lie ? Show me some reliable stats as to who really receives the most traffic.
Posted by: KS on June 1, 2008 07:00 PMI do not believe that HA gets more traffic than SP. I remember hearing about a year ago that SP received more than twice as many hits as HA. Unless things have changed dramatically and I'd be surprise that they have, SP is still more widely accessed than HA. Could it be that Daddy Love is trying to perpetuate the lie even though he knows it is a lie ? Show me some reliable stats as to which blog really receives the most traffic. My money is on Sound Politics, dude..
Posted by: KS on June 1, 2008 07:01 PMYou're an idiot. Here's the facts about HA and SP:
HA ranks 414,000 out of all websites.
SP ranks 250,000 out of all websites.
SP trumps HA. Another leftist alternate reality blown away. Facts are inconvenient things, aren't they Daddy Love (hmmm, NAMBLA reference?)
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 1, 2008 07:19 PMAlexa is an utterly unscientific and useless measurement of site readership. Here's a good article from Slashdot about why. (Note: I work for Slashdot and contributed a bit to that article.)
The bottom-line summary is simply that they use sampling to determine site ranks. Take a percentage of users, see what sites they visit. Sounds good, right? But the cardinal rule of statistical sampling is that self-selected samples cannot be generalized to a larger population.
All we can say is that SP ranks 250K for users of the Alexa toolbar, and unless you know that users of the Alexa toolbar well-represent users of SP and HA, those numbers are useless.
Also, Alexa users are generally Microsoft/IE users, and I've seen plenty of data that makes me think MS/IE users are more likely to be right-leaning, and Firefox users are more likely to be left-leaning. Therefore for two sites with equal traffic -- one right, and one left -- the right-leaning site could be expected to have a higher Alexa rank.
Anyway. Don't let me stop you from bashing HA, but using Alexa as authoritative is a pet peeve of mine. :-)
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 08:22 PMYeah, that's a really scientific study you've done there Daddy Love. You think, therefore it must be. I think we've settled which site is backwater, and it isn't SP.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 2, 2008 04:54 AMAnd please don't think it is reasonable to attack the data I've seen about MSIE vs. Firefox, while thinking Alexa's data is reliable.
Facts are inconvenient things, as Shanghai Dan says. And the absolutely scientifically true fact is that Alexa's data is useless. There's a good philosophical reason why scientific statistical methodology requires us to eschew self-selected samples as generalizable to a larger population, and it is simply because there is likely to be a demographic bias among people who choose to be sampled.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 07:47 AMRe: Pudge's Post
I agree Pudge that GF and Lieberman are in their own club. I just don't get what is eating at GF. The fact of the matter is Hillary assumed this would be a coranation and her campaign made a very stragetic error in assuming everything would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. If she should be upset, it should be at the Mark Penn's and the other Hillary campaign staff, and Hillary herself, for mismanaging the campaign. They made an error in judgement.