"Donny Osmond, watch your back! This is Mitt Romney,"

May 3, 2007 3:56 PM

Sizzlingly Inappropriate Republican Debate Hottie Rundown! --in what's becoming a recurring series (see her UK Hostages and Dem candidates here), Werthmann rates (in a supergroovy Tiger Beat/fan mag way) the 10 GOP hopefuls appearing tonight in the Debate. On Rudy: ... The way he burns through spouses, we think he's fair game. Hey, Rudy, we need some "consulting"! ... : >
posted by amberglow (82 comments total)

What's inappropriate about it?
posted by The World Famous at 4:00 PM on May 3, 2007

When you said "rundown" I thought somebody got hit by a car.
posted by boo_radley at 4:01 PM on May 3, 2007

The word "ferrets" needs to be added to Rudy's dislikes list.
posted by blucevalo at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

What's inappropriate about it?
I think that started because the hostage one was first. Looking at everything thru the Tiger Beat lens isn't really inappropriate--even if the entire DC press corps does it daily, with their focus on haircuts and clothes instead of issues. (I guess you can call this a homage to all of them too, and especially to Maureen Dowd, the lead "Heather" of the NYT)
posted by amberglow at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2007

in that vein as well: ... instead of tailing the president at each public event, this new media pool would focus exclusively on the grooming habits of leading Democrats.
Call it the haircut beat.
Matt Drudge for years has done his best to stay on top of all the breaking haircut news, but with the 2008 campaign ramping up, no single person can be expected to monitor such an important press topic. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:19 PM on May 3, 2007

One of these guys is going so save the Republican party. LOL.
posted by bardic at 4:24 PM on May 3, 2007

No surprise it's Huck and Mr. Mitt in the lead. But yeah it's a parody of the way the DC press core treats the democrats. You think Tweety is going to ask Mitt Romney about his haircuts today? Is he going to ask Giuliani about his comb-over or Ferret problem? Or about cross dressing? Or his divorces or Bernie Kerick or... Man, now that I think about it Giuliani really hit the power ball on image-issues.
posted by delmoi at 4:46 PM on May 3, 2007

Someone tell me that America really isn't this far gone. War and billion dollar deficits have been trivialized and ignored to this extent before right? I mean other than during the fall of the Roman Empire?
posted by parallax7d at 4:57 PM on May 3, 2007

Or about cross dressing?

That should be asked--they asked about Edwards' haircut, after all.

Mr. Giuliani, do you prefer an 18-hour bra under your dresses, or an all-in-one girdle?

; >
posted by amberglow at 4:58 PM on May 3, 2007

Mr. Giuliani, do you prefer an 18-hour bra under your dresses, or an all-in-one girdle?

Neither. He personally endorses the Wonder-Bra
posted by IronLizard at 5:02 PM on May 3, 2007

Thompson looks like he lives under a bridge, and Giuliani looks like Nosferatu.
posted by amberglow at 5:08 PM on May 3, 2007 [3 favorites]

(and Romney's been dipping into Arnold's mantan)
posted by amberglow at 5:08 PM on May 3, 2007

We think Catholic Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is "intelligently designed"! implies Catholics believe in such pap, which has not been the case for at least the last 50 years.
posted by Mick at 5:15 PM on May 3, 2007

What kind of emoticon do I use at the end of a line to signify a boring, unfunny attempt at wit?
posted by QuietDesperation at 5:44 PM on May 3, 2007

:|
posted by Snyder at 6:04 PM on May 3, 2007

Giuliani looks like Nosferatu

So true, but he would be like Hitler if elected.
posted by caddis at 6:10 PM on May 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

He would erode the legislative branch to the point of impotence, then scare the populace into nationalistic fervor to start wars on multiple fronts?

He's late the party me thinks.
posted by parallax7d at 6:20 PM on May 3, 2007

betcha whathisface.. er, Fred Thompson comes out of left right field to take the nomination. Wouldn't be too surprised if Gore does the same thing on the other side. Making all these "debate" thingies nowadays superfluous.
posted by edgeways at 7:00 PM on May 3, 2007

Incidentally, I seriously wonder just how much these debates accomplish. Last election cycle Bush did pretty badly (I think that can be said with out being too partisan about it) in the main debates but still won.
posted by edgeways at 7:02 PM on May 3, 2007

Hell, Bush and Kerry both did pretty badly. It was a shite display. But man did I ever get the hoojibbies watching the webcast of the GOP tensome. Remind me not to do that in the future.
posted by cortex at 7:11 PM on May 3, 2007

Just watched the debate. They all lined up on the national ID card idea, except Ron Paul, and then later in the debates they said 'Oh, I only mean for immigrants'. Well, wtf.
posted by delmoi at 7:15 PM on May 3, 2007

You'd only need ID cards for aliens, man. Citizenship is something you can smell. It smells like freedom. And possibly looks like caucasian.
posted by cortex at 7:23 PM on May 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

And possibly looks like caucasian.

Exactly, especially for Tancredo. It's like they each have something special they're obsessed about--immigrants, 9/11, religion, abortion, etc.
posted by amberglow at 7:27 PM on May 3, 2007

did you catch this little moment?

8:44PM Brownback just referred to his friend "Lieberman, a Jew."
posted by amberglow at 7:29 PM on May 3, 2007

a Kos poll gave the debate to Zombie Reagan ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:33 PM on May 3, 2007

I live for the day when Zombie Hendrix will rise from the grave and rip the dessicated, pustular scrotum off Zombie Reagan while vying for control the Earth. Break dancing to "The Police" thus ensues. I don't get out much, though.
posted by rhizome23 at 7:40 PM on May 3, 2007

Personally, I hope those fuckers write in Reagan....
posted by rhizome23 at 7:49 PM on May 3, 2007

That was painful to watch, not as much because of the responses but because it was even more bloated than the South Carolina one. 10 guys, 90 minutes, and John McCain getting 30 seconds on every yes/no question to "just clarify that?" I had no time to adaquitely figure out which one morally repulsed me the most.

Also, you know what? The right-wingers were right- 100% right- that was the most awful pick for a moderator I've ever seen. Matthews just decided to have a special extended version of Hardball. He actually quipped at the responses. Even a liberal like me can't pretend that was just ridiculous. Matthews did a great job four years ago hosting each of the candidates individually for an hour... moderating a debate as an impartial host? No way.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:15 PM on May 3, 2007

(can't pretend that wasn't ridiculous, I mean)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:16 PM on May 3, 2007

Really, the Reagan fetish is almost embarrassing. The man was just a pretend tough guy, spouting platitudes, with neither depth nor substance. An actor trying to play the Marlboro Man.

I guess that's what Republicans seem to like -- Bush 2 is the same (minus the personableness) -- but it still never ceases to amaze me that adults are impressed with guys who play cowboy.
posted by Flunkie at 8:31 PM on May 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

Flunkie- they have to idolize Reagan because- well, who do they have left? Bush Sr? Ford? Nixon? The last great Republican president was Eisenhower, and if you ran his record without mentioning names and dates the typical right-winger would ask "who's that liberal bastard?"

You're right that Reagan was a fetishized actor with no substance, which pretty much explains the entire Fred Thompson craze right now.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:39 PM on May 3, 2007 [4 favorites]

The last great Republican president was Eisenhower, and if you ran his record without mentioning names and dates the typical right-winger would ask "who's that liberal bastard?"

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?"
posted by Flunkie at 8:42 PM on May 3, 2007

Duncan Hunter should be the next rogue president on 24. He'll go for it. We just need to convince him it's real . . .
posted by hackly_fracture at 8:56 PM on May 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

And the winner is...
posted by homunculus at 9:25 PM on May 3, 2007

2008Filter: :|
posted by Avenger at 11:10 PM on May 3, 2007

Flunkie wrote - I guess that's what Republicans seem to like -- Bush 2 is the same (minus the personableness) -- but it still never ceases to amaze me that adults are impressed with guys who play cowboy.

I think that's giving them too much credit. The big problem with the hardcore GOP faithful is their immature worldview.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:31 AM on May 4, 2007

On a related note :
"The campaign is the same deal. Instead of making a Malibu beach soap out of a prude, a slut, a 98-pound weakling and a leading man, you do a political drama with a hothead (McCain), an Eddie Haskell (Romney), an underdog (Obama) and a wicked witch (Hillary), all doing turns manning tractors and cow-milking chairs on a digitally-enhanced farm set that looks so much like Iowa, you'd swear it was the real thing. .........

I bring all of this up because I've started to see the first examples of what I call the "Sweet n' Blow" campaign article hit the front pages in recent weeks. The Sweet n' Blow, as the name suggests, is a no-calorie substitute for real journalism, a gossip column masquerading as political reportage. It's one of the key techniques for use in turning the election into a politics-free character drama. A true Sweet n' Blow piece makes it from the lede all the way to the last line without saying one fucking thing about what the candidate actually stands for. Instead, it will tell is a lot about the candidate's strategy for improving his "image," which incidentally had originally been created, at least in part, by the very reporter writing this new article." ~~~ Matt Taibbi.

I love Taibbi's writings. Will you Americans allow him to be kidnapped and brought to India or is it a crime under this war on terruughh!! ??
posted by forwebsites at 4:58 AM on May 4, 2007

I watched the whole thing, God forgive me (unfortunately all my laundry was already done).

Scary, scary,scary. Some of the things that jumped out at me:

1. Duncan Hunter is a war-mongering nutball. Invading Iran would probably be his first move as President.

2. Tommy Thompson said he's okay with employees of private businesses being fired because they're gay. Asshole.

3. Ron Paul was actually sort of impressive. Unfortunately, I don't agree with his "drown government in the bathtub" beliefs.

4. All of them are itching to overturn Roe v. Wade. One of them (I think it was Tancredo) said the day Roe v. Wade was overturned would be the "greatest day in our history".)
Any woman who votes for any one of these idiots is just stupid.

5. Romney is so slick and packaged, I bet he left an oil-slick on the floor. He's definitely the Republican "Slick Willy".

6. John McCain is either off his meds, or he's just doesn't care about keeping in touch with reality anymore.

7. Tancredo will definitely be the choice of fencing contractors everywhere.

8. Even with the "backpedaling", it's obvious that everyone but Paul support National ID's. American lovin' but freedom hatin'.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:52 AM on May 4, 2007

Damnit. I want to like McCain, I really do--he's ostensibly the least authoritarian candidate on the Republican ticket, he don't take no guff, and the shrill liberal in me can only summon so much hatred for right-wingers without looking for some sort of conciliatory candidate. He might have been viable, 8 years ago, but that incessant shilling for Iraq... god. Now, he just looks like he's come completely unhinged, and is railing against the establishment, despite being an active part of the establishment, and not having done anything to distance himself from the awful policy decisions coming out of the White House.

If any of y'all are looking for a great political read, David Foster Wallace's newest book of essays has a piece about his time on the McCain2000 trail. Awesome look at the working of the machine.
posted by Mayor West at 6:31 AM on May 4, 2007

but that incessant shilling for Iraq

It's become the ultimate irony of McCain's political career (and his Achilles heel) that for at least a few years he was the only prominent Republican that dared to criticize the Administration's handling of the war, and now he actually owns it.
posted by psmealey at 6:40 AM on May 4, 2007

but it still never ceases to amaze me that adults are impressed with guys who play cowboy.

Yeah it's aggravating, but ultimately I think it's just the hardcore faithful (morons) that buy that nonsense. The general population doesn't care though, just as they didn't care about Clinton's dalliances and the GOPs efforts to blow those out of proportion. They'll mainly vote for the less lame of the two candidates offered.
posted by psmealey at 6:49 AM on May 4, 2007

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq rented two planes and flew above the debate with "Mission Accomplished" banners.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:50 AM on May 4, 2007

Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee don't believe in evolution. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be "It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom."

Photos of the Republican and Democratic debate participants. A bunch of old white guys wearing the same suit versus a group of diverse age, race, and gender. Both debates used a sliced-up American flag backdrop.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:28 AM on May 4, 2007

That "liberty and freedom" quote makes me want to puke.
posted by agregoli at 7:41 AM on May 4, 2007

None of them appear electable to me. Seriously.

Walnuts, Giuliani, Romney are the closest, but I didn't think they were impressive. Romney isn't going to get anyone's heart beating. Ron Paul is good medicine, like Gravel is for the dems.

They all seemed to be aiming for the base, but the base is now down to a rump of 28-30%.

Fred Thompson would walk the nomination at his point I suspect.

Of course the Dems could still completely lose 2008 and probably will, but against this bunch of dead-enders I'd say that Obama, Gore and even Clinton could prevail.
posted by unSane at 7:49 AM on May 4, 2007

Not that I particularly relish this possibility, but has Jeb ruled out a run? Or is the smart money thinking that America couldn't stomach another Bush right now?
posted by psmealey at 8:34 AM on May 4, 2007

I want to like McCain, I really do--he's ostensibly the least authoritarian candidate

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken. If not, what on Earth are you talking about?
posted by Kwantsar at 8:41 AM on May 4, 2007

We think Catholic Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is "intelligently designed"! implies Catholics believe in such pap, which has not been the case for at least the last 50 years.

The Catholic Church has not endorsed such pap for at least the last 50 years. Sadly, many individual Catholics do still believe in such pap, including Brownback, as kirkaracha notes above.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:09 AM on May 4, 2007

Not that I particularly relish this possibility, but has Jeb ruled out a run?

He's consistently and repeatedly said he won't run in 2008. Not that he couldn't change his mind, of course, but it doesn't look likely.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:12 AM on May 4, 2007

An appalling sickening group, I sincerely hope the Dems don't decide to pick Hillary, for one of these crusty whitebreads would surely win.

The comment about abortion I think is actually unintentionally quite apt though. Surely banning abortion would reduce the freedoms of the mother, restricting one of the liberties she currently enjoys. If you consider the unborn child as human, then protecting it from being aborted would, in the balance, be a much stronger defense of liberty. The defense of life itself surely trumps any one liberty, that is if you consider a fetus to be a person.
posted by parallax7d at 9:17 AM on May 4, 2007

Well, duh. That doesn't mean it will prevent me from wanting to puke though.
posted by agregoli at 9:23 AM on May 4, 2007

This may seem strange, but I predict Cheney will end up running either now or in 2012.
posted by drezdn at 9:23 AM on May 4, 2007

The verdict of the right wing blogosphere seems to be that Fred Thompson won by not playing, followed by McCain. Giuliani is seen as a bust.

I agree completely with agregoli that the Dems lose if they pick Hillary. It is not that hard to handicap.

Obama, I think, wins against any of these especially as anecdotally he seems to be picking up a surprising amount of former die-hard GOP voters who have never previously considered voting Democrat, something that HRC will never do.

I think HRC vs. Giuliani is a fair fight; she loses to McCain and wins against Romney. She loses to Thompson.

Edwards is a fair fight against Romney and loses to everyone else.

Gore is a fair fight against Thompson/McCain/Giuliani.
posted by unSane at 9:34 AM on May 4, 2007

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken. If not, what on Earth are you talking about?

::blink:: Right. So I've been reading the wrong press releases. I thought McCain modeled himself after some good old-fashioned Goldwater conservatism? I know Guliani would have us marching in lockstep, given half a chance, but I thought McCain was more of paleoconservative. Shows what I know... christ, at what point did the entire party abandon its foundation to become hawks?
posted by Mayor West at 9:40 AM on May 4, 2007

I thought McCain modeled himself after some good old-fashioned Goldwater conservatism?

McCain models himself after Al Pacino in the second half of Scarface. It's terrifying.

unSane, your analysis is awesome. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I was really hoping that the Republican debate would be as entertaining as the Democrat debate, and I was totally disappointed. How can they all be so totally out of touch with not only reality but with what people want to hear? You'd think they would at least say what people generally want to hear.

I guess the "who doesn't believe in evolution" revelation was pretty interesting -- but not as interesting as learning that Obama has done nothing in his personal life to help the environment or that Edwards, like Bush, believes that God will tell him what to do as President.
posted by The World Famous at 9:46 AM on May 4, 2007

When you said "rundown" I thought somebody got hit by a car.

I read it as 'rubdown'. Republicans and "hottie massages" didn't seem the least bit incongruous until I read your commment.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:17 AM on May 4, 2007

I predict Cheney will end up running either now or in 2012.

I'm all for tolerating differing political viewpoints in this great democratic experiment of ours, but anyone that votes for Dick Cheney, ever, should be deported.
posted by psmealey at 10:36 AM on May 4, 2007

Now, he just looks like he's come completely unhinged

What do you mean "come" unhinged? The man's always been unhinged. He just managed to hide it better in 2000.
posted by blucevalo at 10:46 AM on May 4, 2007

Time grades the candidates
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:05 AM on May 4, 2007

Ron Paul is dreamy...in a "won't violate the constitution" and "seems to think for himself" sort of way.
posted by dozo at 11:53 AM on May 4, 2007

... At the debate, among the candidates, the attendees, even among the press, I was it. I was the black guy. When you are a stone's throw from Los Angeles proper and you can count the people of color you see on four fingers, you can't help but really feel your blackness. Where's the diversity? Where's the future of the GOP? California -- and the party can't begin to integrate the perspectives of blacks and Asians and Hispanics? I was honestly shocked to see that, from the jump, the GOP seemed more interested in reflecting it's POV on the nation rather than absorbing fresh ideas. This was personified by the candidates on stage. While the Dems were able to showcase talent that looked like America, the Republicans hit us up with near carbon copies of a ROWGs gallery -- for those who don't read me regularly, that's Rich Old White Guys. ...
posted by amberglow at 1:25 PM on May 4, 2007

An aside: one of the ways you know that the national ID card isn't "just for immigrants" is that immigrants already have a national ID card (the permanent resident card, colloquially known as the green card despite being beige).
posted by joannemerriam at 9:22 PM on May 4, 2007

In fairness, the candidates (except Paul) were proposing a "tamper-proof" national ID card. Not that I approve, mind you, but it sounds like they wanted something more than the current green card.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:53 AM on May 7, 2007

there's no such thing as "tamper-proof", and isn't a bigger problem undocumented people with real SS#s and real Driver's Licenses that shouldn't have them?
posted by amberglow at 10:55 AM on May 7, 2007

amberglow, you make a great point -- anytime a politician proposes something "temper-proof" or anything like that ("lock box," anyone), the bs meter should immediately jump off the scale.

But I don't get why a national ID card is a bad idea -- maybe I just don't understand what's being proposed. I already have a social security card and a driver's license. What is it about a national ID card that would be different or more onerous than what's already in place?
posted by The World Famous at 11:42 AM on May 7, 2007

Papers, please.
posted by cortex at 12:07 PM on May 7, 2007

Papers, please.

Right, just like now. What's the difference if the I.D. is national or if it's issued by the individual states? I'm as scared of the police state as anyone, but is there more police state dynamic to the national I.D. proposal than I know about?
posted by The World Famous at 12:14 PM on May 7, 2007

Arguably, pushing for a single, ubuitous, canonical document changes the shape of things a bit by normalizing the expectation that you should and will have your papers with you. There's a hell of a lot of slippery slope involved, natch, but the comparison between having an SSN card in a file cabinet at home for occasional use in securing a pastport or employment and what could be practically made to be normal with a modern initiative tied to modern hardware? Not exactly straight across the board.

Honestly, it's not something I've got a lot of investment in one way or the other, but those are the sorts of things I've heard people fret about when the subject comes up.
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on May 7, 2007

Thanks, cortex.
posted by The World Famous at 12:35 PM on May 7, 2007

Yup--SS numbers and licenses and passports are for specific reasons.

Many European countries have national id cards/papers that people must carry at all times, i believe. It's not awful, but it's certainly no solution to anything at all--it won't stop immigration and it won't stop anyone from getting fake papers or ids. That's the real problem--that these solutions don't solve the problems they're supposed to, and as we've seen with voting recently, they can be a barrier to full civic participation.
posted by amberglow at 1:10 PM on May 7, 2007

Also, i really don't trust any administration--what if they tie it into all the spying databases and you find out (like the really messed-up no-fly list) that you suddenly are blacklisted everywhere, or can't get work or insurance or an apt or anything? We've seen how they use information.
posted by amberglow at 1:12 PM on May 7, 2007

Arguably, pushing for a single, ubuitous, canonical document changes the shape of things a bit by normalizing the expectation that you should and will have your papers with you.

Arguably? heh.

Arguably, having a six-inch wound in your chest suggests that you may wish to seek the services of a qualified medical professional.
posted by Kwantsar at 4:54 PM on May 7, 2007

Well, arguably it could work out just fine, too. I don't have a set position on the subject, though I'm cynical enough to agree that it feels like a Bad Idea.
posted by cortex at 5:01 PM on May 7, 2007

Do people in the U.S. really not have the expectation that they should and will have their identification with them? I have always assumed that I should have my identification with me. The only times that I've been randomly stopped and asked for my papers have been in Western Europe, but I always carry identification in the U.S. Who doesn't?
posted by The World Famous at 5:05 PM on May 7, 2007

If you're in the US and you're not making a major purchase, getting on an airplane, driving a car, or going to a bar (adjusted for age and bar)? Eh. It's nobody's business who you are.
posted by cortex at 5:42 PM on May 7, 2007

If you make any purchase with a credit card, debit card or check, you'll need your I.D., major purchase or not. And if the police have reasonable suspicion, they can demand to see your I.D. already -- it doesn't matter if you're committing a crime or not, just that they have reasonable suspicion, which is a pretty low bar.

I don't like it, but that's life in the modern world in the U.S. Which isn't to say that I think it's o.k. or that I'm dismissive of suspicions against government (I'm very suspicious of government), but I just think that getting upset about a national I.D. sort of ignores the fact that we're basically there now, except that our I.D. says the name of our state on it (or the name of our video rental store, or our university, high school, social club, union, or whatever else we have cards for).
posted by The World Famous at 5:49 PM on May 7, 2007

If you make any purchase with a credit card, debit card or check, you'll need your I.D., major purchase or not.

Since when? I never ever do when using credit or debit cards. The only time i really need id proving i'm American is when i travel. And police can ask for id, but they can't arrest you for not having any with you--a national card would mean they could, i bet.
posted by amberglow at 5:53 PM on May 7, 2007

(oh, and when i vote, but that's proof of local residence only)

Wasn't there just a lawsuit about some guy asked for id on a local bus or something?
posted by amberglow at 5:57 PM on May 7, 2007

of course, i do carry my passport (my only id) with me during the week (but that's more in hopes that someone will whisk me away to Paris for dinner) : >
posted by amberglow at 5:58 PM on May 7, 2007

If you make any purchase with a credit card, debit card or check, you'll need your I.D., major purchase or not.

Seconding amberglow—with card purchases, ID requests are enforced rarely, selectively, and (from the very limited experiences I've had where it even happens) in scale to the size of the purchase (or at least the median price scale of the store I'm buying from).

Cops can and do finger people, with good and not so good justification, but it's not an expectation that the person getting fingered will have their standardized ID on them. What is and is not suspicious behavior, as far as having and presenting ID, is likely to be colored procedurally by the existence of a standard and ubiquitous federal document like this.

Shades of grey, but they're discernible. It's not hard to understand why the proposition would make people uncomfortable.
posted by cortex at 6:12 PM on May 7, 2007

more, including action to take about the proposed REAL ID thing here (scroll down)-- ... What we do know: You will make more than one trip to the motor vehicle office to apply for your REAL ID national identification card; the government has estimated that the scheme will cost taxpayers $21 billion; REAL ID requires documentation that most people will have difficulty finding; and the cost of driver's licenses and state ID cards will skyrocket. We do know that the federal government is considering expanding the REAL ID card to everyday use. ...
posted by amberglow at 6:23 PM on May 7, 2007

AT this stage, according to Newsweek, both Obama AND Clinton are beating the top three R runners. Obama is ahead of Hillery, but she is ahead of Giuliani , McCain and Rommy. And seriously, at this point those five are the whole game.
With everyone rushing to move their primaries up, and New Hampshire actually talking about having a primary around this fucking Thanksgiving the slots are going to be filled early early next year.
Fred will have to jump in to make things even remotely challenging. Which I guess leads one to the conclusion that it is possible the election could come down to two boys from Tennessee. yeesh
posted by edgeways at 6:42 PM on May 8, 2007