Kay Shapero wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C105E6BD0053FA6EF0284530@news.verizon.net>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org says...
> > >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:45:53 -0400, email@example.com wrote
> > (in article <firstname.lastname@example.org>):
> > >
> > > Joseph DeMartino wrote:
> > >> Why settle for the LESSER of two evils?
> > >>
And half the time it seems like we end up voting for the evil of two
> Now, now who would YOU choose for President of Vice?
Going out on a limb in the prediction category...for the Republicans,
there's no question they've struck a deal with McCain, given his
behavior and toning down of his usual forthrightness, which sadly kind
of invalidates him, as far as I'm concerned. It may make him a more
viable candidate, but a less viable president, if that parses.
Nonetheless, he'll start this thing as a front-runner, and may even
make it to the nomination, but honestly I think the nomination is
Guiliani's to lose. Maybe we'll see a combination of the two.
(One scenario I keep hearing from insiders is Cheney resigning after
the November elections for "health reasons" so they can put either one
of those two into the VP slot to position him for 2008. This will in
turn give Cheney the freedom to join the Kryptonian Science Council and
continue to make clear to all concerned that Krypton's inner core is
absolutely rock-solid, regardless of what that nutbar Jor-El says.)
For the Democrats, barring Edwards making one heck of a comeback, I
think the nominee is going to end up being somebody we haven't heard
much about before, someone who's going to kind of blind-side the media
and the beltway the way Clinton kind of came out of nowhere. I think
we've seen the same-old-gang one time too many, and none of them have
demonstrated any real strength in dealing with things in DC, so someone
from the outside will, I think, be very attractive.