by John McCormick
NASHUA, N.H. – A day after he finished second in the Iowa caucuses, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards suggested his two leading Democratic primary opponents could be bought and sold.
"We're up against two celebrity candidates who between them have raised over $200 million dollars," Edwards told an audience of several hundred in a small hotel ballroom.
"But, here's the good news: the people of New Hampshire have got a little bit of an independent streak, don't they?" Edwards said. "And they like to shake things up a little bit. And we're not going to have an auction in New Hampshire. We're going to have an election on Tuesday."
Later, speaking to reporters, Edwards said he had managed a "couple hours sleep" and was "doing great." He called himself "the underdog" and compared himself to Seabiscuit, the long-shot racehorse from a movie.
"We're very happy to be back in New Hampshire, and New Hampshire voters are going to have a big stay in who we nominate and they're going to get to decide whether we're going to just exchange corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats, or whether we're actually going to have somebody who is willing to stand up for them," Edwards said.
Asked specifically what the message out of Iowa should be for New Hampshire voters, Edwards almost suggested it was a virtual tie.
"There were three candidates that were very close to each other. I finished ahead of Sen. Clinton, behind Sen. Obama," he said. "Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton outspent me five, six to one. So what it means is what I stand for and what I'm fighting for, for the middle class for jobs, against corporate greed, it's a message that resonates…It's going to cut through the money and the glamour right here in New Hampshire on Tuesday."
Continuing a theme he used in Iowa, Edwards suggested that Clinton and Obama are tied to special interests because they currently or have in the past accepted money from federal lobbyists.
"I feel very strongly that you cannot take these people's money, and stand up for the American people against them," he said. "It doesn't work."
Observing the importance of independent voters in New Hampshire, Edwards suggested that he would be able to capture support from the group.
"Ending corporate greed and restoring the middle class and fighting for jobs. This is something that's crucial not just for Democrats," he said. "It's crucial for Republicans and independents. And I think this message will resonate among independents."
Joe Trippi, an Edwards senior adviser, suggested Obama fails to understand the real problems in Washington.
"He thinks there is too much anger in Washington," he said. "We think there is too much money in Washington."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"We're up against two celebrity candidates who between them have raised over $200 million dollars," - What he really said -Nobody wanted to buy my product.
"There were three candidates that were very close to each other" This would be like Lovie Smith summing up the Bears season - "Well there were four teams real close, but wqe didn't quite win the division and won't be moving on into the playoffs, but we were really close".
John Edwards is in the pockets of no one? I'll bet the trial lawyers would do well if there was an Edwards' presidency.
Isn't Joe Trippi the same genius that helped Al Gore lose in 2000?
Posted by: Terry | January 4, 2008 4:51 PM
Earth to John Edwards. Nobody is buying your act anyway. Obama is gonna sweep change into Washington. You can feel the energy building. p.s. Iowa republicans are scary. I can't believe they voted for the republican Jimmy Carter!
Posted by: Barack & Roll | January 4, 2008 4:58 PM
John Edwards loves to make stuff up.
In this case, Edwards compares himself to the racehorse "Seabiscuit" as an "underdog".
Trouble is, the actual racehorse "Seabiscuit" was not the long-shot underdog of the movie but rather the betting favorite in his big races. See for example the March 7, 1937 Chicago Tribune article on the prestigious Santa Anita race, where Seabiscuit was the betting FAVORITE, and won.
Edwards' "facts" come from entertaining movies, not easily-verified reality.
Posted by: Bruce | January 4, 2008 5:03 PM
Yeah Obama will "sweep" change after accepting more money from the corporate health care bloodsuckers than all the republican presidential candidates combined!! Right!! edwards isn't in bed with anyone but Elizabeth.
Posted by: sally | January 4, 2008 5:24 PM
Keep on fighting, Edwards!
Posted by: RTS | January 4, 2008 5:33 PM
Edwards is the most electable.
He is also the best candidate.
Posted by: Oscar | January 4, 2008 5:42 PM
Edwards is the most electable.
He is also the best candidate.
Posted by: Oscar | January 4, 2008 5:45 PM
Terry,
Don't bring the Bears into this, I'm having a difficult enough time dealing with another failed season (and you thought I was a Niners fan).
It was mentioned on CNN last night that the Presidency will likely cost the contending candidates $500,000,000. Yes, half a billion dollars to capture the prize. What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by: dt | January 4, 2008 5:46 PM
Quote from an article on www.boston.com: "Lobbyists praised Obama"
Those three words speak volumes. Both Obama and Clinton have already sold America out to the special interests and those deals cannot be cancelled.
Posted by: Annielise | January 4, 2008 6:06 PM
I can only hope that John Edwards wins.I totally believe he is the man/person who will fight for the middle class people. Stand up for us.So far no one else has.And I believe the other two really are only talking.Yes it does matter were you get your money from.Mr.Edwards has taken a stand on were the money he receives comes from. To the point of not having as much as the others. That says so much to me.It would be much easier to just take every thing anyone offers you.Like the others.Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Shannon Schmidt | January 4, 2008 6:11 PM
I can only hope that John Edwards wins.I totally believe he is the man/person who will fight for the middle class people. Stand up for us.So far no one else has.And I believe the other two really are only talking.Yes it does matter were you get your money from.Mr.Edwards has taken a stand on were the money he receives comes from. To the point of not having as much as the others. That says so much to me.It would be much easier to just take every thing anyone offers you.Like the others.Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Shannon Schmidt | January 4, 2008 6:12 PM
I like Edwards message. I think he's right. We are going to have to fight tooth and nail to get the moneyed interests out of Washington. Obama seems like a nice guy but I don't think his idea of giving insurance companies a seat at the table to create healthcare legislation is the answer. I think that's been the problem.
Posted by: pmorlan | January 4, 2008 6:22 PM
John Edwards is by far the best candidate to serve this country after the next election. Obama is a great second choice but I'm putting my vote-and my time-behind Edwards if he can win these next caucuses. Every time I hear people knock him as a trial lawyer, it amazes me. Don't we want lawyers to fight for our rights against corporations who might and too often do take advantage? The more we learn about Edwards the more respect he garners.
Posted by: Alexandra Saperstein | January 4, 2008 7:08 PM
Actually, Edwards raised money from a huge number of small donors (less than $100/person). He just didn't get as many big donations. So there were a whole lot of folks who "bought" his "product," if you insist on phrasing the Democratic process as a business transaction. But if all you're trying to say is that the deep pocketed donors--the entrenched, moneyed interests in Washington--were more interested in what Clinton and Obama were selling, then I'd say we're in agreement. Edwards was never trying to attract the donors who throw around the most money; his message is in diametric opposition to such a stance.
Posted by: Haden Smith | January 4, 2008 8:18 PM
Someone should ask Obama if he's really intent on going after corporations, why has he taken more corporate money than anyone running, second only to Hillary?
Edwards is our only hope.
Posted by: susan | January 4, 2008 8:59 PM
We really need "change" in the United States of America, as all the candidates on both sides keep saying. I have watched and listened to all the speeches and watched every debate I could. I am a tax paying veteran that served during Desert Shield and Southern Watch in the USAF. I love my beautiful country and I want the rest of the world to love her and respect her again as they should. John Edwards is the ONLY person that seems honest, motivated, strong, intelligent and independently spirited enough to really lead the free world on either side of the running! While I embrace the wonderful historical significance of both a woman and an African American having serious capabilities in this race, neither are telling me or showing me even by slight comparison what Edwards is to fight for our country and its people! And he's not being bought as the otheres certainly are! Go Edwards...Fight for us!
Posted by: CJ Callahan | January 4, 2008 9:20 PM
Obama Presidential contender of the Democrat Party’s nomination, said."“The anti-immigrant law passed by Mayor Barletta in Pennsylvania was unconstitutional and unworkable — and it underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands,” Obama, a
He stated he believed the attempt to enact the law was a reaction to what he considered Congressional failure on the issue of immigration. And he made a pitch for what supporters have referred to as a comprehensive immigration reform. Amnesty for between 13 to 20 million illegal aliens
“Recently, the U.S. Senate failed the American people by blocking progress on immigration reform for the second time in two years,” Obama said. “We cannot put this off any longer. The ongoing problems with our immigration system are dividing our country, and distracting us from the work we need to do in other important areas such as health care, education and jobs.”
The comprehensive package Obama supported ran into a firestorm of controversy, with opponents calling it “amnesty.” A similar proposal ran into similar problems last year and also failed. Just like Senator McCain, Hillary, Richardson and the majority of the Democratic party, they want taxpayers to support millions of lawbreakers. Most of the republicans are no better, except for a few who see unfettered waves of uneducated, cheap labor thrown into the American citizens workforce as a nightmare on the horizon. Edwards might have some mitigating ideals, where the majority are panderers to special interests and the globalist, open border, free market of people and goods. Taking Obama to the White House would be an economic disaster on working Americans, our language and our Constitution. Taxpayers cannot afford the draining of the federal treasury to police foreign wars, no can we pay another 2 trillion dollars to support low income workers with foodstamps, education, hospitalcare and the overpopulated prison system. Case in point, the great state of California is sinking into a welfare quicksand of $14.7 billion dollars! Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, Missouri and soon Kansas and perhaps Indiana have said "enough is Enough!"
Posted by: Daves | January 4, 2008 9:28 PM
dt,
Why the heck would I be a Niners fan? I don't live anywhere near the left coast, let alone that socialist city by the bay
Posted by: Terry | January 4, 2008 9:34 PM
There is a couple of ways to look at this:
All that money does cost influence and can (does) corrupt the system.
The other way to look at it, is it is the most important job in the world and getting it wrong can cost hundreds of billions over a 4 year term. It might be money well spent.
Posted by: Terry | January 4, 2008 9:40 PM
I've switched my vote from Obama to Edwards because, while Obama talks about change, I haven't seen him offer much in terms of a game plan. Edwards, on the other hand, is mapping out a radical plan to extricate corporate profiteering from Washington. Obama's speech during the 2004 Democratic Convention was like salve on a wound; but his message during the campaign has faltered. The EPA's recent decision on California emission controls ignores the urgency of global warming and demonstrates how that agency is in the back pocket of oil & gas and automobile manufacturers. The FDA is bank-rolling drug manufacturers by routinely approving medications for human consumption without testing long term side-effects, then taking them off the market AFTER their devastating effects come to light (meanwhile lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies at the cost of Americans' lives). Edwards is the only candidate willing to take on corporate America and its corrupting influence on this administration--corruption that touches each of our lives on a daily basis.
Posted by: pjohn | January 4, 2008 9:49 PM
John Edwards is the man for the job. Obama captures audiences because he has a flair for public speaking and mimics MLK oratory style. But John Edwards has the substance, the guts, the class, and the experience that we need for a leader! go John Edwards! I am behind you all the way!!!
Posted by: H. McD | January 4, 2008 9:53 PM
Awesome day for John, And democracy. To think he was out-spent to the tune of Millions of dollars by HC and BO (bad initials) and still posted second screams of reality,but also proves peoples opinions can still be bought.
Hopefully the minor revolution we have seen in Iowa will continue to open peoples eyes, even though the national press still wont give john the same coverage as the other 2,simply because he wont be bought
Posted by: bill | January 4, 2008 9:57 PM
NO more-
Hillary Clinton dynasty,
John McCain's Politics of Fear,
John Edward's Politics of Convenience,
corrupted Health Industry.
ITS SICKENING.
!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Voted for War on Iraq.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
Hillary Clinton supported Bush on aid to Pakistan for wrong
reasons.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
John Edwards is using populist theme for convenience in this
election and is a big hypocrite.
Remember that John Edwards was a Trial Lawyer, worked for a Hedge
Fund Company and has 28000 sq ft mansion and $400 hair cuts.
Barack Obama is a community organizer from the beginning and is
honest person and refused to be a Trial Lawyer.
BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY CLINTON'S WRONG
EXPERIENCE.
BARACK OBAMA'S HONESTY TRIUMPHS OVER JOHN EDWARDS'S HYPOCRISY.
BARACK OBAMA'S POLITICS OF HOPE TRIUMPHS OVER JOHN MCCAIN'S
POLITICS OF FEAR.
!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Posted by: jkojs | January 4, 2008 9:57 PM
To the fellow trying to claim Edwards is making up the idea of Seabiscuit being an underdog, I'm sure you are perfectly aware of how wrong you are. Yes, for most of his races in the West Seabiscuit was the favorite, but his most dramatic race was that against War Admiral in November 1938 at Pimlico. War Admiral was by far the favorite at 1-4, with Seabiscuit well behind at 2-1. In other words, War Admiral was favored eightfold over Seabiscuit. Looks to me that the "easily verified reality" is on Edwards' side here.
Posted by: Patrick | January 4, 2008 10:08 PM
NO more-
Hillary Clinton dynasty,
John McCain's Politics of Fear,
John Edward's Politics of Convenience,
Corrupted Health Industry.
ITS SICKENING.
!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Voted for War on Iraq.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
Hillary Clinton supported Bush on aid to Pakistan for wrong reasons.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
John Edwards is using populist theme for convenience in this election and is a big hypocrite.
Remember that John Edwards was a Trial Lawyer, worked for a Hedge Fund Company and has 28000 sq ft mansion and $400 hair cuts.
Barack Obama is a community organizer from the beginning and is honest person and refused to be a Trial Lawyer.
BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY CLINTON'S WRONG
EXPERIENCE.
BARACK OBAMA'S HONESTY TRIUMPHS OVER JOHN EDWARDS'S HYPOCRISY.
BARACK OBAMA'S POLITICS OF HOPE TRIUMPHS OVER JOHN MCCAIN'S
POLITICS OF FEAR.
!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Posted by: jkojs | January 4, 2008 10:08 PM
NO more-
Hillary Clinton dynasty,
John McCain's Politics of Fear,
John Edward's Politics of Convenience,
Corrupted Health Industry.
ITS SICKENING.
!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Voted for War on Iraq.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
Hillary Clinton supported Bush on aid to Pakistan for wrong reasons.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
John Edwards is using populist theme for convenience in this election and is a big hypocrite.
Remember that John Edwards was a Trial Lawyer, worked for a Hedge Fund Company and has 28000 sq ft mansion and $400 hair cuts.
Barack Obama is a community organizer from the beginning and is honest person and refused to be a Trial Lawyer.
BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY CLINTON'S WRONG
EXPERIENCE.
BARACK OBAMA'S HONESTY TRIUMPHS OVER JOHN EDWARDS'S HYPOCRISY.
BARACK OBAMA'S POLITICS OF HOPE TRIUMPHS OVER JOHN MCCAIN'S
POLITICS OF FEAR.
!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Posted by: jkojs | January 4, 2008 10:09 PM
Edwards is the underdog because he is fighting special interests. And Hilary in particular is a perfect example of the opposite. Her big lesson from being in the White House? You can't beat the health care special interests so instead put together a plan they approve of. Sure everyone will be covered, but at what price? She claims her plan will help push down insurance rates, but this is dubious. Candidates should be fully publicly financed for the sake of democracy and Edwards is as close as they come. It shows in his policies, and the fact that he has put far more time and effort into presenting and articulating them in extensive papers. It's too bad he is labeled a populist because this has a negative stigma for a lot people. He's in fact a true democrat standing up for the interests of everyone in our society, not just the corporate interests. Which isn't to say he is against corporations, none of his policies seem to lead towards socialism or anything of that nature. He is simply saying that we shouldn't cater exclusively to corporate interests. This is why he doesn't have as much money, this is why he is the most legitimate candidate (unless you're a member of the 1% wealthy elite).
Posted by: Joaquin | January 4, 2008 10:11 PM
President John Edwards and First Lady Elizabeth..What WONDERFUL LIFE! very Frank Capra-on message and just what the USA needs to bring us back to world class super power status!
Posted by: scrapper | January 4, 2008 10:47 PM
John Edwards has never taken money from lobbyists… this cannot be said for Senator Obama. Those supporting Senator Obama should consider his entire record, not just listen to his rhetoric. They should, in fact, read his plan on the important issues facing our nation then compare it to John Edward’s plan. On the issue of healthcare, for example, there's a pretty big difference between the two. One plan will cover everyone, the other will not.
As for trial lawyers… if you ever find yourself in a lawsuit against a company that refuses to cover your child’s medical expenses (which were the direct result of that company’s negligence) you might find yourself feeling less animosity for members of this profession. And finally, as for "Seabiscuit," you should really try reading the book... it’s a great read and a heroic American story… that is, after you read more about Mr. Obama’s record.
Posted by: Carol | January 4, 2008 10:49 PM
Obama's money came from many small donors in the working class and middle class -- the people Edwards says he'd like to help.
Posted by: jstipich | January 4, 2008 10:52 PM
Barack Obama "refused" to be a trial lawyer? Think being a trial lawyer is easy? Think you just walk in there and the insurance companies hand over millions of dollars in settlements? Hope you never end up totally disabled because someone was yacking on a cell phone and rammed into you. You'll be the first to be whining for a trial lawyer!!
Posted by: Agee | January 4, 2008 11:23 PM
Obama is nothing more than an empty suit.
Posted by: Duke Mantee | January 4, 2008 11:25 PM
I'm with Edwards all the way, but could warm to Obama. I'd have to hold my nose voting for Clinton. I've always felt that the likes of Clinton and James Carville are actually Republicans in disquise trying to destroy the Democratic party.
Posted by: Clarke D. | January 5, 2008 1:11 AM
Someone mentioned in the discussion thread above that "the Presidency will likely cost Clinton and Obama $500,000,000." How silly is that? Why don't those two so-called celebrity candidates show what they're really made of and pour that money, instead, into something that really matters, like funding children's healthcare, getting our homeless off the streets, etc., etc., etc. This is sheer insanity! Where are their priorities? Join me in supporting JOHN EDWARDS. Let's put an end to this money-frenzied madness!
Posted by: CAReal | January 5, 2008 1:56 AM
Terry--read closer:
(and you thought I was a Niners fan).
What's wrong with the west coast?
Two ways of looking at it--I think we can scratch the "money well spent" theory in regards to Bush, unless you're referring to the his cronies in big oil, big coal and the MIC.
Posted by: dt | January 5, 2008 2:58 AM
John Edwards is clearly is the democrat most likely to beat the republicans in the big race. Too much is at stake now to throw our advantage away by putting a woman or a black man up against them. Maybe after the country has gotten back on track we can test the electability of more diverse candidates.
Posted by: Sharon | January 5, 2008 4:12 AM
And Obamabots, like jkojs, are empty HEADS. listen man, you are PERFECT as an example of the quasi-socialist PC crew supporting Obama. You sound like you have your head shaved and have been in a cult for decades idiot.
John Edwards is for REAL people, and Obama is for robots like you. Bet you think you have the numbers - the modern day media machine can definitely boast of deep success, especially with videogame- and facebook-brainwashed wasted youth. And Obama is the candidate of the robots.
But John Edwards fans like me are the shizznat. Ron Paul dorks watch out - you aren't the only ones who are a subversive underground movement to topple the status quo. John Edwards is going to lead this nation into the new millenium, and we stand at the ready to defend him at any cost to ourselves.
VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU CAN, BROTHERS AND SISTERS.
And Obamabots - we know your batteries are going to run out soon enough !!!
Posted by: jef wallace | January 5, 2008 4:31 AM
Obama is nothing more than an empty suit.
Posted by: Duke Mantee | January 4, 2008 11:25 PM
Soon to be in the Whitehouse!
Posted by: Anonymous Bosh | January 5, 2008 4:40 AM
dt,
I can imaging what the 8 years of a Gore administartion would have been. Long recession becuase he wouldn't know how to stimulate the economy. No response to 9-11 because it was police matter not a military issue and the world would be one-half a degree cooler.
The good news would be the dems canidate for president this year would probably be Joe Liberman.
Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2008 8:08 AM
The other way to look at it, is it is the most important job in the world and getting it wrong can cost hundreds of billions over a 4 year term. It might be money well spent.
Posted by: Terry | January 4, 2008 9:40 PM
Now that's the most sensible comment from your trap for quite a while!!!!!
BOY GEORGEE.How much has he cost us???????
Posted by: Raving Loon | January 5, 2008 9:29 AM
John Edwards is the ONLY candidate capable of giving America what it so desperately needs right NOW. We need a strong message that resonates with not only America, but with the World to bring back our global respect. We need to put an END to Disaster Capitalism. We need a FIGHTER who actually has the capability and background to fight and be diplomatic. He is the only candidate who has spelled out a real PLAN - not just hollow rhetoric and buzzwords. He will be our next truly GREAT PRESIDENT who will REPRESENT the People.
Posted by: Walt Heim | January 5, 2008 12:56 PM
What is really SICKENING is that there are so many uneducated, narrow mind fools, that continue to spit out NeoCon spin!
Posted by: Jheim | January 5, 2008 1:08 PM
Edwards '08! The only TRUE Candidate for change!
Posted by: Tyler | January 5, 2008 1:28 PM
John Edwards reminds me of Gov. Rod Blago in looks and rhetoric.
Posted by: Perch Rapala | January 5, 2008 2:57 PM
Crazy Duck,
Spending time cleaning up some messes. Recession in 2001. 9-11. While Bill was getting a hummer for the fat chick, al Qaeda was plotting.
Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2008 4:06 PM
I can imaging what the 8 years of a Gore administartion would have been. Long recession becuase he wouldn't know how to stimulate the economy. No response to 9-11 because it was police matter not a military issue and the world would be one-half a degree cooler.
The good news would be the dems canidate for president this year would probably be Joe Liberman.
Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2008 8:08 AM
Eight Years of Gore--
We would be less dependent on oil. Oil wouldn't be at $100 a barrel.
Gore wouldn't have invaded the wrong country and buried us in a trillion dollar war. Gore would not have allowed bin Laden to slip away at Tora Bora.
one-half degrees is a lot over eight years, fool.
Gore wouldn't borrow and spend trillions, then dump his misguided war and smoke-and-mirrors economy on the next president.
Gore would not torture, would not alienate our allies, would not compromise our civil liberties.
In other words, trickle-down, he would have been everything Bush wasn't, which is a good thing.
Oh, and he'd be able to articulate a sentence and pronounce nuclear.
Spending time cleaning up some messes. Recession in 2001. 9-11. While Bill was getting a hummer for the fat chick, al Qaeda was plotting.
Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2008 4:06 PM
Bush's highly regressive tax cuts and reckless spending will create a mess for the next several presidents. 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush's presidency, 9/11 on Bush's watch, repeat after me, Terry, 9/11 on Bush's watch while he blew-off the warnings, 9/11 on Bush's watch, while he spirited the bin Laden's relatives out of the country, 9/11 on Bush's watch, while he finished My Pet Goat. 9/11 on Bush's watch while he made plans to invade Iraq.
And the cigar party you are so obsessed with...what kind of distractions did a bogus impeachment by hypocritical, vindictive Republicans provide while Clinton was trying to deal with al Qaeda, moron?
Terry, are you dyslexic? just wondering.
Posted by: TheReamer | January 6, 2008 2:25 AM
Reamed,
Oil wouldn;t be $100/barrel since our economy would be as vigourous as it has been the past 7 years. However, the supply of doemstic oil would have been put off limits for drilling, so prices might even be higher.
As far as Gore's foriegn policy, the only track record we had is what he did as VP.
As VP in the Clinton administration, he(they) did nothing to react to the terrorsit attackes on our nation.
Have you had one of your civil liberties violated by the gov't the past seven years? If yes, offer proof.
9-11 on Bush's watch as all the plotting of the attack to place during the Clinton Adminstration while bin Laden wandered openly thruout the Mideast.
The inocme tax cuts of President Bush, given to people that income taxes, stimulated the economy to pull us out if the recession and also help the economy recover from the terror attacks. The income tax cuts were given to ALL that pay income taxes. It is those tax payers that generate economic activity. Ever get a job from a poor person?
The Pet Goat Story is a pathetic non-issue. What would that additional 7 minutes have given the country?
9-11 happened while President Bush was president.
Yeah and so did the White Sox WS title. Should I Send him a thank you note?
The impeachment had to do with Bill as a sexual harrasser and his lying under oath about it. Or is that appropraite behavior in the democratic party?
Posted by: Terry | January 6, 2008 10:34 PM
Check out this article, it outlines a strategy on how the Edwards campaign could defeat Hillary Clinton. Check it out at http://thirdrailradio.blogspot.com/
Posted by: ThirdRail | January 21, 2008 4:37 PM