Look, I might as well tell you now. He's a monkey.

Otoh this sort of stuff is bullshit:

Reticence of Mainstream Media Becomes a Story Itself

Did the MSM drop the ball on John Edwards?

Wingnuts are doing a dance of joy today. After years of flogging stories that amounted to nothing but paranoid right wing fantasy, they finally got something right. I think the Infinite Monkey Theorem best describes their track record on the truth.

The idea that the mainstream media fell down on the job because it didn't cover a story which broke in the supermarket tabloids is absurd. When you break it down this story really isn't relevant and certainly not worthy of the shitstorm that covered the networks yesterday and today.

We have to push back hard against media navel-gazing on this. They were correct to blow off the whiners of the right who've been complaining for weeks that this story was being ignored. The cartoon world that conservatives live in already permeates to too great of an extent into reality. We don't need the media taking them any more seriously than they already do.

Stealing a man's wife, that's nothing, but stealing a man's car, that's larceny.

There is a double-standard when it comes to the press and how they treat Republican and Democratic sex scandals. It's a simple reality. Getting outraged of the unfairness of this situation won't change the fact that the situation exists.

This double-standard has existed for years, if not decades. That Democratic politicians will be pilloried for sexual indiscretions while Republican politicians will get off virtually scott free shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Least of all Democratic politicians. It's been 24 years since Gary Hart got caught stepping out on his wife.

John Edwards is on my shit list.

The winner would decide the outcome of the entire war.

A bugler played "Taps" in the backgrounds as I slowly deleted the Edwards For President link from the sidebar.

Our next President will be named either Clinton, Obama, McCain or Romney.

God help us all.

I mean, my TV Guide interview was six paragraphs about my BOOBS and how they fit into my suit. No one bothered to ask me what I do on the show.

Just a follow-up on my Obama post from Friday. First let me thank you all for the comments to that post. I appreciate y'all taking the time to respond.

I realize that I do a lot of bitching about what I'm against but don't always reveal what I'm for.

My views seem to fairly mirror don and Aaron's - I'd like to see Kucinich as the nominee but realize that Edwards is the only progressive populist with an actual chance at winning the nomination.

Hillary Clinton's been dead to me for a while as someone who has failed a chance at true progressive leadership from a safe position in a "blue" state. I'm very much of the mind that democratic politicians from electorally safe states ought to be pushing a progressive agenda HARD. In that way we can move the center back to, well, the center in American politics.

So that leaves us Obama and Edwards. Both present progressives with a problem in that there's a certain amount of trust necessary in supporting either candidate.

With Obama you have to trust that he will not live up to some of truly inane things he's promised ("saving" social security, making peace with homophobes) towards what can only be considered moderation in the crazy world of Washington. To support Obama I'd have to believe that he would act much more progressively than he's currently promising once in office.

With Edwards it takes a similar leap of faith that he would act on what he's promising were he elected and not turn to Clinton/ Obama style triangulation. Those that support Edwards have to trust that he's not all hat, no cattle.

So then I have to ask myself a few questions. Of the two which candidate is ready to face the Republican slime squad head-on? Which candidate is more likely to bring some sort of mandate towards a progressive agenda if elected to office? Which is the fighter and which is the dreamer?

Sadly I don't find "Barack Obama" to be the answer to these questions.

Update- I started this post before yesterday's primary in which Hillary Clinton won. I'm continually amazed that the discussion surrounding her win is almost completely centered on gender issues and the response to her weeping during a question a couple of days ago. Even among the lefty blogs this issue is open to debate.

Like the issue of race with Obama I find this discussion unseemly. The country is hurdling towards the edge of the cliff with the crazy guy behind the wheel giving it all the gas she's got. Debating whether or not the person we have take over for him should be black or a woman seems insane under these circumstances seems insane. We need to make sure we'll put someone behind the wheel that will turn the car around.

I'm not sure Clinton would or that Obama can. I know that Edwards says he'll try.

I say we give him the chance.

Admit so, sir. This is some new form of torture. Say it, Brother Sir.

A friend recently asked me who I thought would take the Democratic nomination in '08. I haven't the foggiest. If you believe the press then it'll be Hillary or Obama. Yawn. Here's my personal take on the candidates and potential candidates so far...

Hillary Clinton - No, no, just NO. The appeal seems to be her profile, her enormous campaign war chest with would presumably give her an advantage in the general, and the "two-fer" we'd get from having Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse as the First Spouse. So what?

Hillary has been a huge disappointment as a Senator. She represents a solidly blue state yet has continued to put her national political ambitions ahead of what's good for the country or what's good for the Democratic party. Her support for the war or, at the very least, her failure to criticize it's prosecution, should automatically disqualify her from the nomination as demonstratably lacking the judgment necessary to be President.

Barack Obama - Look, I loved his keynote speech at the convention, although it was delivered before the the wrong audience. Democrats aren't the ones pushing the red/ blue America meme.

Putting that aside the guy just hasn't lived up to the hype. There was a particularly memorable moment when he got Pwned by John McCain over torture that comes to mind. He just comes across as too nice a guy to deal realistically with Republicans who favor eliminationist policies towards Democrats.

John Edwards - I like the populist message and like seeing someone focus on economic concerns but the fact is he did very poorly in his debate with V.P. Yosemite Sam. If you can't face down the Prince of Darkness, who can you face down.

Dennis Kucinich - Love his policitics but don't think he has a serious chance at fundraising and the nomination. Would love to be wrong on this.

John Kerry and Al Gore - I'm lumping these guys together not just because they share the dubious honor of already having been the Democratic candidate for the Presidency but they also both failed to understand the depths Republicans would go to to steal the Presidency nor be willing to put up a real fight. Kerry sins on this issue are particularly unforgivable.

I know I left a ton of potential candidates off this list the whole exercise is beginning to leave me depressed. I'm really hoping for a white horse this year to come in and shake things up.