If you put the two most hypocritcal candidates out there for each party, and the most polarizing in regards to common party lines, I have no doubt you will give a third party a golden chance to rush in a sieze the middle.

 

I've been thinking Edwards was the front runner all along, Obama and Hillary will bash each others brains out and have high negative energy. In other words Dem voters will say

 

I'm for Obama and if he doesn't win, anyone but Hillary.

and

I'm for Clinton and if she doesn't win, anyone but Obama

 

Guess who "anybody" is? Edwards. Everyone's second choice, Or at least nobody's last choice.

 

The GOP radio network has been simultaneously promoting Hillary as the front runner and tearing her down. Great strategy. She is the easiest for the GOP to beat. The ghosts of her husband and all that crap are enough to keep a lot of Dem faithful (including me) from voting for her.

Because he's the only one who isn't making a complete arse of himself on the war funding.

Huh? How about the non-Senators running - Romney, Richardson, Giuliani... and how about the few Senators with some balls? Like Kucinich (who, again, while not electable, is at least principled).

He hasn't had a voting record to get beatdown with since he left the Senate.

 

True, but when he makes comments downplaying a War on Terror, he sounds naive/idiotic.

Huh? How about the non-Senators running - Romney, Richardson, Giuliani... and how about the few Senators with some balls? Like Kucinich (who, again, while not electable, is at least principled).

Kucinich is a Congressman, but you're otherwise right.

 

Richardson is IMHO the only person with real foreign policy experience worth having in this race.

Tell you what. Since that is 2 on 1, if you give me 2-to-1 odds, I'd take that bet on Edwards.

 

I think I'd have to take that bet.

I think I'd have to take that bet.

What shall we wager? Do a sig bet maybe? Though I don't see how the odds would work there.