Monday, July 17, 2006

Ze Poll

Zo, I am interested -- whom among you is likely to vote for one of these people? Who gets you excited (of this bunch)? Offends you?


Anonymous Tomanonymous said...

Mark Warner offends me the least, mostly by default.

Monday, July 17, 2006 12:27:00 pm  
Blogger sandra the cheezygoof said...

les claypool for president!

Monday, July 17, 2006 1:29:00 pm  
Anonymous dubstalero said...

Winona for Veep??

Just askin'

Monday, July 17, 2006 2:03:00 pm  
Anonymous secret victor said...

I'm waiting for a journo to ask Hillary the same question asked Billy vis a vis underwear choice. If she responds "thong" then by golly she has my vote. Same for Rudy.

Monday, July 17, 2006 3:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Mister Parker said...

Les Claypool for Prez? Can we nominate Ed Kranepool for veep?

None of these people get me excited. Newt Gingrich and George Allen are impossibilities as far as getting my votes. John Kerry I'd vote for only if he were running against Gingrich or Allen.

The others are in play to varying degrees. But none of them are mango chutney ...

Monday, July 17, 2006 4:10:00 pm  
Anonymous Juvenile Buffoon said...

I continue in my firm belief that John Kerry would have been an excellent president.

I'm very interested in Warner, though I admit I'm mostly excited by his having the "right profile" (moderate southern governor).

I'm pissed at McCain lately but I'd like to think that if he made it to the White House he'd stop sucking the neocons' dicks and revert to his "moderate-maverick" glory.

Bayh would be fine by me, if unexciting. Hillary Clinton could be a fine president, but she can never get elected, so I oppose her nomination on that basis alone.

The rest are a bunch of brownshirted, halfwit fuckwads.

Monday, July 17, 2006 11:33:00 pm  
Anonymous your Dubstalero said...

I continue in my firm belief that John Kerry would have been an excellent president.

Distinguishing, for the moment, the ultimate merit of one's policies from one's "makings" as a president, I fear that Sen. Kerry would not have made a good president (although his policy choices migth have been excellent). His occasional tone-deafness as a candidate, his inability to avoid patrician demeanour (and concomitant distancing from the electorate and the governed), and his choices about how to deal with Swift Boat and Vietnam-era charges were all, I found, wanting. I will let other learned colleagues comment about how his rise to the Senate from his state may have insulated him from the sorts of challenges that confront a presidential candidate. And I tend to equate how well one does as a president with how well one does as a candidate, again eschewing a discussin of the policy judgments driving the candidiate.

I also question whether McCain is even remotelya moderate. His gadfly, maverick approach, which alienated him from his party and was inconsistent with the rabid religious social conservatives -- when mixed with his candid approach to campaigning -- created an impression or appearance of moderation. But his policy judgments have been, I think, quite conservative.

I might add "reactionary" with regard to campaign-finance "reform," but that opens up a lengthy new discussion that work demands would not allow me to complete.

Mark Warner offends me the least, mostly by default.

This seems to be one of his strongest selling points, actually. I wonder if he could be a uniter, and not a divider. . .

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:18:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mark warner.. yay!!!
yaaaaay!! -- vapor the retard

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:31:00 pm  
Blogger Sigmund Freud said...

mark warner.. yay!!!
yaaaaay!! -- vapor the retard

I find this comment the most interesting, but in part because I cannot understand it at all.

What the fuck does it mean?

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:45:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home