• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • 1820
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown






  • Technorati: graph / links

    I think John Kerry will be Obama’s VP


    by Sunny on 20th August, 2008 at 2:08 am    

    That’s my gut feeling. Firstly because John Kerry is a known name that Americans (Democrats) will be comfortable with, and Obama needs this because there’s chunk of Democrats still avoiding him because of racism.
    Secondly, Obama needs a strong attack dog if he is to challenge the smears that McCain is putting out. Kerry’s the only person doing that right now - the rest of the VP candidates have been very quiet on this front. Kerry came within a whisker of beating Bush last time. If he can hold on to those Democrats, and combine that with the added number of new African-American and younger voters, they’ll cruise through. The announcement is expected tomorrow.



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: United States




    45 Comments below   |  

    1. Nav From Canada — on 20th August, 2008 at 3:47 am  

      I don’t think it will be Kerry, mostly because it would undercut the “change” message. So would picking Biden to some degree, but Biden wasn’t the top of the last Democratic ticket. I do, however, agree that Kerry has been a very strong Obama surrogate.

      My money is on Kaine or Biden, but I could easily look very silly in a day or two …

    2. wiskers — on 20th August, 2008 at 3:58 am  

      I would love for it to be Kerry, I don’t give to shakes about what went down in 2004. Senator Kerry is still well received and respected where it counts- outside Washington. He was gracious and dedicated in his support and defense of Obama and they compliment each other. They even share some of the same ideas on how to move America forward. Senator Kerry is a new type of politican- trying to reach out to those on the blogs and middle America, Senator Biden is an old style politian and it bothers me the media have been promoting him so hard. I would take Senator Kerry’s approach on how to make America better than anything Senator Biden might offer.
      Oh, if only it would be possible and true. I am afraid Senator Obama is going to make the wrong choice.

    3. bikhair — on 20th August, 2008 at 4:28 am  

      Sunny,

      You want Obama to lose those election dont you? He needs to pick a governor, a conservative democrat MALE (sit your ass down Hillary) who the Republicans can’t touch. Oh, and he needs to deal with his abortion issues. This is holding me back.

    4. cjcjc — on 20th August, 2008 at 8:56 am  

      Kerry?
      Billionaire Kerry?
      Another “cosmopolitan elitist”?
      Yeah, that’ll work.

      Though you’ll make a lot of money if you are right - he’s not even on the bookmakers’ lists.
      I wonder what odds they would give you?!

    5. zaffer — on 20th August, 2008 at 8:57 am  

      I still think a deal with the Clinton’s is a must for securing his presidency

    6. Letters From A Tory — on 20th August, 2008 at 9:52 am  

      No, not a good idea. Kerry was crippled by claims of flip-flopping on many policy issues, and regardless of whether or not this is true Obama would pick up the tab for this.

      http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

    7. Rumbold — on 20th August, 2008 at 9:57 am  

      Sunny:

      Not everyone who won’t vote for Obama is racist. Some people just prefer John McCain, or his policies.

    8. Shamit — on 20th August, 2008 at 10:11 am  

      how does Kerry help in Ohio, Michigan and Florida — or even Virginia.

      Colorado is in play too but can Kerry help him there either?

    9. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 10:22 am  

      Clinton would be Obama’s best pick, but then again, Bill Clinton is a bonafide dick. Clinton might do two things for Obama: serve as an attack dog, and implement her universal health coverage or as US patriots would put it - socialized medicine.

      McCain is incompetent and ignorant - qualities that are appreciated by the same people who elected Bush twice.

      I would have gone for Jim Webb or Wes Clark.

    10. Leon — on 20th August, 2008 at 10:44 am  

      I don’t see it, he’s doing a good ‘Al Gore job’ at the moment (not running but playing a deft game as if he could), plus he’s damaged goods due to his loss and his performance at the last General Election.

      I’m tending more and more to think that it’s going to be Clinton (although I wouldn’t rule out a surprise like Colin Powell).

    11. Shamit — on 20th August, 2008 at 10:45 am  

      The only Democrat who beat the right wing republicans by going in the middle ground, saved affirmative action, reformed welfare and genuinely played a big role in Northern ireland, saving Boris Yelstin and made efforts in achieving some kind of peace in Middle east is a bonafide dick. Yeah right. And, Obama cant wait to use his name positively a President Clinton and his achievements in every stump speech — oh how the Clinton Administration achieved so much.

      And, now Obama cant wait to praise Bill Clinton as President Clinton who was transformative and gave the US the biggest economic growth and also taxed the rich a bit more to deliver better results. And, the bipartisan mantra and bringing the country torgether was Bill CLinton’s message and the right wingers hated it and Obama would face the same thing if he became President.

      What happened to Bill Clinton being racist now — I think Obama would paint anyone racist if they oppose him. And, he wont do it he would get Axlerod to do it. By the way, Ravi the middle class tax cut, the affirmative action plan and the welfare reform along with the abortion messgae for oBama came from Bill Clinton playbook.

      Yeah he is a dick thats why he got elected twice when no one gave him a chance. And, the most successful US president in recent history and did I mention the only Democrat to win the white house twice since FDR.

      Yeah but he is a dick? but why? Obama is a cry baby — oh Bill Clinton is racist, oh McCain cheated. Its okay for him to be presumptuous on trying to act Presidential but when McCain does a bit — he comes back but the US foreign policy should have one voice and this is with president Bush. Yeah then what was he doing articulating his conversations with Maliki — no US Senator does that.. So Obama is the cry baby and he kinda reminds me of Brown — the messiah who turns out to be incompetent and wants power for power’s sake. but he does have good rhetoric. I will give you that.

    12. Dave Cole — on 20th August, 2008 at 11:15 am  

      I’d go for Evan Bayh. Boring, centrist, doesn’t make too strong a contrast with Obama’s supposed lack of experience but brings a certain amount of weight. His home state of Indiana may be geographically too close to Illinois, though.

      This article by Bayh and Obama may be of interest.

      xD.

    13. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 11:21 am  

      What happened to Bill Clinton being racist now

      When you compare Obama to a Jesse Jackson (the failed black politician!), Obama to MLK (the black idealist preacher), Obama to a Muslim (pictures of him in Africa with turban, “He is not a muslim… as far as I know) - and now memos released from Clinton’s advisors where the strategy was to make Obama look foreign and unamerican - well, to answer your question: Bill and Hillary lost.

      Yeah he is a dick thats why he got elected twice when no one gave him a chance. And, the most successful US president in recent history and did I mention the only Democrat to win the white house twice since FDR

      Bill Clinton was a great President, but then he became a dick because he wanted to get to the White House at all costs. It is amazing how Obama - an unknown - managed to get so far as to become the nominee of a major party, being black and with a strange name. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows how to beat McCain.

      I hope he defeats McCain. I have followed every McCain speech, and the guy is worse than Bush. He finished in the last 5th in 900 (he was that bad!), has little grasp of History or even what is going on in Iraq. He was a moderate in 2000, now he is well into wingnut territory. He is a warmonger and wants to bring back the cold war (he makes Bush look like a moderate). He needs Joe Lieberman to tell him the difference between Sunnis and Shiahs. His campaign is deeply financed by lobbies. He changes positions on the same day at different venues. He sees the world in simplistic terms: black and white. He says he knows how to win the war and bring Bin Laden to justice - but he doesn’t share any details. He just wants to continue the occupation indefinitely - because ending it means losing it. Meanwhile, the deficit is growing.

      Americans are not enlightened. They deserve McCain and get screwed even further. I am pro-American - at least, the American ideal, and would like to see a prosperous America from Bill Clinton years. But all empires have an end, and we are witnessing the end, unless Obama and Democrats are able to penetrate the undecided.

    14. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 11:29 am  

      My guess is Biden. He fares well with seniors, specially females, and he is a hell of an attack dog.

    15. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 11:35 am  

      Of course, Obama-Kennedy would be awesome.

    16. Leon — on 20th August, 2008 at 11:55 am  

      Bill Clinton was a great President

      Yeah bombing medical factories in Africa to distract from his blow job fun with the intern was certainly ‘great’…

    17. The Common Humanist — on 20th August, 2008 at 12:07 pm  

      “I hope he defeats McCain. I have followed every McCain speech, and the guy is worse than Bush. He finished in the last 5th in 900 (he was that bad!), has little grasp of History or even what is going on in Iraq. He was a moderate in 2000, now he is well into wingnut territory. He is a warmonger and wants to bring back the cold war (he makes Bush look like a moderate). He needs Joe Lieberman to tell him the difference between Sunnis and Shiahs. His campaign is deeply financed by lobbies. He changes positions on the same day at different venues. He sees the world in simplistic terms: black and white. He says he knows how to win the war and bring Bin Laden to justice - but he doesn’t share any details. He just wants to continue the occupation indefinitely - because ending it means losing it. Meanwhile, the deficit is growing”

      And this is Rumbolds man.

      Nice to see conservatives showing their true colours…..

    18. Dave S — on 20th August, 2008 at 1:10 pm  

      See this thread and try to honestly tell me it makes a damn bit of difference who “wins” in this (or any) election!?

      Every so often we’re asked to choose the best turd in a pile of turds, and as soon as we make our “choice”, we lose!

      In fact, we lose before that. We lose as soon as we start trying to find the differences between them, because it’s all so superficial.

      The whole thing is a charade!

      Why is this so hard for the majority of people (let alone intelligent Pickled Politics posters) to grasp?

      Stop pinning your hopes on these corporate puppets! Even discussing their irrelevant sideshow indicates just how much you’ve already missed the point. You might as well be discussing Eastenders!

      (Yes, of course I would “prefer” a social-democratic to a fascist government, but it’s a bit like asking if I’d prefer death by suffocation or death by poisoning, when actually, I’d rather just be left alone to live my life! The “choice” isn’t.)

    19. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 1:27 pm  

      Honestly, Dave S, do you really believe that differences between Bush and Al Gore or Kerry are superficial?

      Every so often we’re asked to choose the best turd in a pile of turds, and as soon as we make our “choice”, we lose!

      And how do we “lose”? If all you care is to be left alone to live your life, what is stopping you?

    20. crowth — on 20th August, 2008 at 1:52 pm  

      If Obama has some sort of surprise for us then it best not be Kerry. That would be a rubbish surpise. Like a Kinder Egg with a little poo inside.

    21. Dave S — on 20th August, 2008 at 1:58 pm  

      Oh Ravi, here we go again! Did you not read the last bit of my previous post - the bit in brackets?

      And how do we “lose”? If all you care is to be left alone to live your life, what is stopping you?

      We lose, because as soon as we put an X in that box, we lend legitimacy to handing over our power to one of a pre-determined, crappy “selection”, all of whom favour business interests, and all of whom are impotent when it comes to exerting any actual control over business telling them what to do.

      How can we vote for an entirely different system? We can’t!

      How can we vote for “none of the above” (or my preference “nobody”), and have that actually carried forward, should it receive the most votes? We can’t!

      The rules and choices are predetermined by the system offering us the “choice”, and thus it is not a choice.

      Certainly, some politicians are worse than others, so despite loathing both, I would rather have a Tory than a BNP government, for example.

      But whoever we vote for, big business always wins. Even when “left wing” politicians get in, it makes no difference. Government is at best impotent, and at worst, a co-conspirator in the plans of big business.

      The only way we can register any real objection is to refuse to participate in the charade by refusing to vote, and to work on building alternatives ourselves which undermine the current systems.

      What is stopping me being left alone to live my life is that people claiming to have “a mandate from the people” (despite piss-poor electoral turnout, which they conveniently attribute to “voter apathy” - or could it perhaps be because all the “choices” are equally repulsive?) are aiding in the destruction of our world so that soon we will not be able to live here, and ripping us all off in the process.

      We lose because there is profit - immense profit - in shafting us every way it is possible to shaft us.

      Let’s imagine for a second that you are a turkey, and that it’s Christmas Eve. Here’s your voting card:

      [_] Christmas dinner (with sage and onion stuffing).
      [_] Christmas dinner (with chestnut stuffing).
      [_] Christmas dinner (with orange and cranberry stuffing).
      [_] Christmas dinner (with no stuffing).

      Which one do you vote for? (Oh, and by the way, if you don’t want to vote, we’ll just go with whatever the majority of other turkeys voted for, even if only a couple of them bother.)

      Gobble gobble! :-)

    22. cjcjc — on 20th August, 2008 at 2:09 pm  

      NB if the turkey is still alive on Christmas Eve it won’t taste great on Christmas Day…

    23. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 2:20 pm  

      But whoever we vote for, big business always wins.

      In other words, you an one-issue voter - there is a lot more to consider: environment, wars, economy, education, health, world peace, gay rights, civil liberties. It’s a bit more complex than Christmas voting for a lonesome turkey.

    24. Sunny — on 20th August, 2008 at 2:47 pm  

      Dave S is so far out that I’m not surprised he sees Obama and McCain as the same.

      Some people just prefer John McCain, or his policies.

      hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

      That’s real funny Rumbold. Nice joke. Please see Ravi’s post above.

    25. Dave S — on 20th August, 2008 at 3:40 pm  

      Ravi @ 23:
      I’m not a single issue voter - I’m a non-voter.

      We cannot vote for anybody who will do what is best for the people.

      A) Because this is impossible. By definition, it is impossible to “represent” the wishes of everybody. I think we should do away with so-called “representatives”, and have a direct say in the running of our lives; trying to reach acceptable compromises on whatever scale they are needed, rather than the biggest group riding roughshod over minorities.

      B) Because whoever is in government makes little difference. Corporations are more powerful and more mobile than states, and they are the ones truly in power. They aren’t accountable to the public, and neither are the vast armies of bureaucrats surrounding government. These are not changed by voting.

      I consider all the issues you mention (and a lot more besides) and I join the dots between them. They are all at the mercy of corporations and their lackeys, and I for one am not content to scrabble around for the crumbs that fall off the tables of power.

      Sunny @ 24:
      I don’t see Obama and McCain as the same. From what I’ve seen so far, I’d “prefer” Obama. He’s clearly the best turd in this particular pile. I will breathe a small sigh of relief if he wins, and a large groan of despair if McCain does.

      But either way, we all still lose. Just sometimes we lose more than others.

      Why should we have to participate in a fundamentally corrupt system in which we always lose, and in which the only question is about how much?

      Doesn’t that piss you off?

      Don’t you want to create something fairer?

    26. Leon — on 20th August, 2008 at 3:44 pm  

      Something Chomsky said about Kerry in 04 is relevant here: small differences can make for big outcomes.

    27. Vijay — on 20th August, 2008 at 5:02 pm  

      I agree..JK is the right choice. I would have totally disagreed when the whole process started, but I’ve changed my mind. I liked how JK handled himself on MTP, and the need for foreign policy and military credentials is clear given the circumstances.

    28. Rumbold — on 20th August, 2008 at 5:07 pm  

      Sunny:

      I forgot that nobody in their right mind could vote for a decorated war hero who was tortured for years rather than abandon his men, a senator with years of experience, one of the first senior politicans to roundly denounce Gitmo and who has consistantly pressed for the US army to conduct themselves liked civilised human beings, and one of the few people who (correctly) backed the Surge. All his fans must be racist, since no non-racist could ever vote against the Obamessiah. Which means that close to 50% of registered Democrats are racist, as they backed Hillary.

    29. Don — on 20th August, 2008 at 5:38 pm  

      Runbold,

      You are surely not suggesting that war hero status has any bearing on fitness for the office of POTUS? His anger management issues seem more relevant to me.

      And Obamessiah? Come on, you’re better than that.

    30. Shamit — on 20th August, 2008 at 5:42 pm  

      It is the same war hero who believes that a middle class tax cut is wrong policy. This is that particular group that do not depend upon government but see their disposable income getting tighter and tighter. This is the group who wants a little bit of help to send kids to college — and that in turn would boost the economy. He wants to continue the Bush tax cuts which does not really give much to the middle class. In terms of percentages, you might say the rich pays more taxes but within the context of their disposable incomes after taxes it becomes obscene — and that would stop me from voting John mcCain.

      What would stop me for voting John McCain is this idea of him trying to impose his religious beliefs on the nation- he would stack the Bench so that Roe vs Wade would be overturned and abortion could become illegal in many states. And, that would be social regression. And I find myself in tune with Obama here talks about reduction the number of abortions but not by forcing women — as if women makes these decisions callously. I dont mind people being pro-life but when the Constitution clearly prohibits the mixing of Church and state — stacking up the Supreme Court such that religious conservatism is given credence by enshrining their archaic beliefs within the rule of law would be one reason why one must be worried about voting for John McCain.

      I worry about the same Supreme Court might keep supporting the doctrine of executive privilege and the executive’s power to determine “clear and present danger” to such an extent that it erodes the basic values and ideals of the the United States.

      I also do not agree with this foreign policy stance of having a league of democracies — I think we need to reform the existing institutions that reflect the 21st century world — and McCain’s us vs them approach along with pushing the European Integration further gives me some more reasons not to vote for this very patriotic war hero.

      And, I am no Obama fanatic… Good enough reasons Rumbold.

    31. shariq — on 20th August, 2008 at 5:43 pm  

      Speculation is pointless. My hope is that he stays aways from these old ‘names’ and picks a fresh-faced young pol who reinforces the change message.

      Americans like to think that their country stands for something and that better times are around the corner. John McCain 2000 could have made this argument but despite his best efforts McCain 2008 is too closely linked with the failures of the Bush Administration.

    32. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 6:06 pm  

      I forgot that nobody in their right mind could vote for a decorated war hero who was tortured for years

      Ironically, if one goes by Bush’s definition of torture - something McCain agreed upon - McCain was not tortured by the Vietnamese but subject to “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

    33. Sid — on 20th August, 2008 at 6:16 pm  

      haha Rumbold #28.

      Your Harvey Two-Face act where you slip into your alter ego, Morgoth, would be disconcerting if it were not so… hilarious.

    34. Jim Jay — on 20th August, 2008 at 6:30 pm  

      It wont be Kerry.

      I don’t mean this in a perjorative way but basically he’s a loser - and one of Obama’s great strengths is… his great strength - he’s seen as a winner, and all the electino discussion whether you are for or against him is about Obama - with the occasional mention that there’s this old guy who’s the alternative.

      Personally I think it will be a woman. If he doesn’t choose a woman McCain will and that would be difficult for him. Having said that I think it just cannot possibly be Clinton - it just wont happen.

    35. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 6:33 pm  

      one of the few people who (correctly) backed the Surge.

      The “surge worked(tm)” is one of the most disingenuous boasts I’ve ever heard. If you add thousands more soldiers, you will decrease violence. That’s a given!
      But that doesn’t mean that it is a long term solution, nor that once the soldiers leave, that the violence will strike back at pre-surge levels. And then what? You just spend millions of dollars for nothing! The real deal is that Obama in 2002 said that invading Iraq would bring about chaos and would unleash fight between Sunnis and Shiahs. McCain in 2008 doesn’t know whether Al Qaeda is Shiah or Sunni, and whether Iran is Shiah or Sunni. He has said in the past that he is clueless about the economy, and his absence in the Senate is even worse than a senator who is recovering from a brain haemorrhage.

      Oh, but he is a freakin war hero. It is time Obama starts pounding McCain.

    36. BenSix — on 20th August, 2008 at 7:23 pm  

      It don’t think that it will be Kerry. If Obama goes for an ‘experience’ VP then he won’t want a figure who’s had that experience very publically and rather unsuccessfully.

      I forgot that nobody in their right mind could vote for a decorated war hero who was tortured for years rather than abandon his men

      When it was insinuated that McCain had been dishonest in the recent Saddleback event, his spokesperson stated “the insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.”

      “one of the few people who (correctly) backed the Surge.”

      And yet his knowledge of it remains strangely deficient.

      Obviously, people do like his policies. Jon Voight, for example (the arse).

      “Personally I think it will be a woman.”

      An interesting recent quote: “My vice-president also, by the way, will be a member of the executive branch; he won’t be one of these fourth branches of the government where he thinks he’s above the law.

      A slip or just the sexism of our beloved language?

    37. Rumbold — on 20th August, 2008 at 7:36 pm  

      I am not saying that people should vote for John McCain, nor that his being a war hero makes him the best choice for president. Personally I think he is at his best as a senior senator, rather than as a president. I just object to the idea that is increasingly banded around by Obama’s supporters that the only ones opposing him are racists, declared or otherwise. And the surge did work, when many people said that it wouldn’t. Not that it is a long-term strategy, but it created breathing space for a revival.

    38. BenSix — on 20th August, 2008 at 7:40 pm  

      “I just object to the idea that is increasingly banded around by Obama’s supporters that the only ones opposing him are racists, declared or otherwise.”

      Yes, that is fair. For one, it implies that there’s no debate to be had.

      Ben

    39. Shamit — on 20th August, 2008 at 8:17 pm  

      Rumbold -

      37 spot on.

      And it makes Obama look hypocritical especially when his campaign and surrogates try to build this image of a different politician transcending race and gender.

    40. Ravi Naik — on 20th August, 2008 at 10:09 pm  

      Personally I think he is at his best as a senior senator

      So, I have given you a link where it states that the guy has the worst absence record ever as a senator - including a senator who was recovering from brain damage - and you say he is at his best as a senator?
      Words fail me.

      I just object to the idea that is increasingly banded around by Obama’s supporters that the only ones opposing him are racists

      I have never heard anyone defend this. But it is undeniable - that there is a considerable number of people - more than 15% - who will never vote for a black man, and that includes Democrats as well. Acknowledging that these people will vote for McCain because of Obama’s race does not mean that all people who vote for McCain are racists.

      So, put that strawman in your pipe and smoke it. :cool:

    41. nope — on 21st August, 2008 at 4:57 am  

      No, it won’t be Kerry.

      Contrary to Sunny’s spin: “Kerry came within a whisker of beating Bush last time,” the more accurate statement is that despite standing against a bell-end who’d taken America into a dubious war, Kerry managed, despite the odds, to fucking lose. He lost. He lost to George Dubya Bush. And if Americans are thinking Bush is an idiot right now, they’re unlikely to fancy the one man (let’s not bring Gore into this) who came up second best to him. Sure, Bush is dumb as all us clever Euros like to think. But Kerry actually got slightly worse grades than him at college. DAMN. He failed before he even tried. He was for it before he was against it, and all that shite.

      The minute Kerry gets mentioned, Fox will (rightfully) start dusting off all those Jane Fonda clips. “Strong attack dog“? 5 words: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry ummed, ahhed and regardless of the truth looked a complete asshole over that whole affair. Didn’t affect his core constituency who stuck by him, but cost him a lot of floating voters.

      Flip followed by flop followed by flip followed by flop followed by that Leftfield tune and Bush walking back into the White House.

      No. It won’t be Kerry.

      And as a Democrat that makes me very happy. As happy as when someone politely told Michael Foot to climb in a fucking hole and promise never to come out again.

    42. Morgoth — on 21st August, 2008 at 4:07 pm  

      Your Harvey Two-Face act where you slip into your alter ego, Morgoth, would be disconcerting if it were not so… hilarious.

      Ah, my cunning plan has obviously been foiled. You’ve rumbled my young padawan. If it wasn’t for those pesky kids etc etc etc…

    43. Rumbold — on 21st August, 2008 at 4:09 pm  

      We must return to Mount Doom and plot our next move.

    44. Sunny — on 21st August, 2008 at 4:25 pm  

      Rumbold @ 28! hahahaha!! The man is a comedian.

      I couldn’t care less if he was a decorated war hero. He’s Bush III. That’s the main problem. The rest is all noise.

    45. Obama VP Decision Expected: turncoats need not apply « Rupa Huq’s home on the web — on 22nd August, 2008 at 12:30 pm  

      [...] 2, Anthony Painter, the artist formerly know as E8 Voice reckoned on Wesley Clarke a while back, Pickled Politics’ Sunny earlier this week predicted John Kerry (2004 vanquished Prisential candidate) and allsorts of [...]

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.