comment #1

le corbeau says ...

I think you're being unnecessarily harsh... to Gregory Peck in The Big Country. Okay, he is a pretty passive character in the beginning, but the point is, he's got enough backbone to resist being swept up in the local feud. In other words, he's nothing like that ranting demagogue John Edwards...

Oddly enough, I just posted a big thing about Big Country (now showing on MGM HD) here:

http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?t=433

comment #2

T. Holly says ...

Best Valentine card ever. You "gutless, dithering... my respect..." for you. If only Hallmark had the guts.

comment #3

BurmaShave says ...

Huh?

comment #4

christian says ...

"My respect for the man has gone out the window."

As if you've ever demonstrated a shred.
Show me that column.

Christ Jeff, just because Obama's got you and Matthews tingling up the leg, doesn't mean everybody's on the same page. Where's Gore's endorsement? That's much bigger.

Edwards just dropped out. Let him decide without the typical bullying that's become synonomous with Obama acolytes.

For somebody who disses religion, you sure act like a camp follower.

comment #5

sardine says ...

i am upset with Edwards also. he should have better sense....esp. now that HC has shown weakness. the Nation Mag fears that mc cain will pick condi as veep....they think that is a potent combo....and so do i. OBAMA MUST WIN.

comment #6

sardine says ...

HEY, i am Buddhist, but when it comes to politics, i am a mafia kind of guy. We are all "religious" about something....be it whatever.

comment #7

Dave says ...

"Where's Gore's endorsement? That's much bigger."

C'mon, I already gave ya my conspiracy theory for free, Christian-- he's waiting for Hillary and Obama to grapple to a deadlock at the convention, then sweep in and become the unifying consensus candidate that every Democrat can agree on!

Then he gives a speech about drainage. Well, at least in my version of the story ;-)

comment #8

christian says ...

If only Dave. If only...

comment #9

Josh says ...

Your first problem is actually taking Edwards seriously. His fake populism is one thing. The guy would say or do anything to get elected. Hes got no core values.

He really wants to help the poor? Ok. How about giving 85% of your fortune to charity.

Ill believe it when I see it. The phony.

comment #10

sardine says ...

gore will not endorse anyone. he is NOT going to run.

comment #11

Noah says ...

Christian, come on man, you don't think it's a gutless move for Edwards to wait and see how things play out before endorsing someone? He's clearly angling for a cabinet position and was waiting for a clear winner to be decided on super Tuesday. Now that it's apparent that we won't know the nominee for a while, he's finally going to support somebody.

comment #12

christian says ...

"How about giving 85% of your fortune to charity."

The typical right response to anybody who demonstrates concern for the poor. "How come they're so rich if they love the poor? Huh? Huh?"

Better you should ask multi-millionaires like Bush and Cheney who profess to be Christians why they don't like to help the poor at all.

comment #13

mutinyco says ...

"Where's Gore's endorsement? That's much bigger."

Even bigger, I'm waiting for Bill Clinton's endorsement...

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

For the record, I've thought Edwards was a gutless dithering douchebag pussy for years.

comment #15

christian says ...

I think losing a child and supporting a wife with cancer makes him somewhat tougher than Jeff or Josh.

comment #16

Josh Massey says ...

And here, Christian, is the typical leftist's concern for the poor: "Let's show our concern for the poor by giving them somebody else's money!"

And you know Bush and Cheney haven't donated anything to charity? Really?

(Different Josh, by the way).

comment #17

Noah says ...

Christian, aren't you just drinking the Edwards kool-aid in the same way you claim that everyone is drinking Obama's kool-aid? Or milkshake, if you want to bring it back to movies...

comment #18

bents75 says ...

Why does he have to endorse anyone? He was the third man just a few weeks ago, what would that say about his positions if he caves and sides with two people who he basically disagreed with all along?

I'll consider him a pussy if and when he finally does endorse someone.

And what about Huckabee? The man has literally turned his campaign into a matter of faith. Just out of curiosity, anyone here think he is a pussy by comparison?

Say what you will about Edwards, at least the man knew when to cash out his chips and go home - now you're complaining because he isn't turning to someone else on the way out and handing his winnings over to them.

comment #19

Breedlove says ...

100 % in agreement with Mr. Wells on this one. After Eli Manning threw that last-second TD to Plaxico Burress with less than 2 minutes left in the Super Bowl, Edwards announced he was rooting for the Giants and, in fact, "totally would have bet money on them."

comment #20

mutinyco says ...

This is the last comment I'll make on the matter for a while, and one based entirely on opinion.

There was a point in this past week as Obama was pulling ahead where I felt I would support him if he got the nomination. But, honestly, the more I see of him, constantly surrounded by his mind numbingly childish slogans, the less I like him. I think his campaign is manipulative, cynical sloganeering crap. And I think if he's elected, he'll be Carter II, a one-termer.

And that's all for now.

comment #21

corey3rd says ...

Edwards has become a fixture on the sidelines of UNC Basketball games.

Can we all agree that the media when talking about Obama and Hillary wanting his delegates should use the word "Felch" to describe this transfer.

comment #22

Noah says ...

"I think his campaign is manipulative, cynical sloganeering crap."

You could be talking about any candidate in any election ever. This is what politicians do.

comment #23

Pinko Punko says ...

It is odd that this is the post where I start to worry about Jeff being deranged, or under the influence of something.

What the fuck is going on with you, dude?

comment #24

mutinyco says ...

Compare rally photos, Noah. McCain's podium simply has his name and website. Obama's says in big letters: Change we can believe in!

I just don't like him. Others sincerely buy his routine. I don't. And he's not qualified. One-term if he gets through the GOP attacks. One-term.

comment #25

Abbey Normal says ...

First of all, "reportedly thinking about endorsing"...which side of your ass did you pull that out of? He's probably just trying to figure out which candidate will better propagate his populist agenda. It's hardly an easy choice on that level. Though I know that in your world, anyone who didn't settle on Obama months ago is a goddamned idiot. Oh well.

Second, he does, in fact, have a lot of sway still (despite your statements to the contrary), especially in the south (Texas, anyone?).

Third, saying "she's all but finished" is very, very stupid. Have you never heard of the word "jinx"? Or paid attention at all to how slanted the media coverage is? Or how often in this primary season the pundits have been flat-out, stone-cold wrong?

comment #26

BurmaShave says ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/politics-as-transcendence_b_86490.html

Wells, as a fervent Obama supporter and volunteer, I suggest you read this and realize venom like this has no place in this discourse. Edwards is a perhaps shallow but extremely decent man. Knock it off.

comment #27

Noah says ...

Mutiny, I'm not going to base my vote off who has their name in the largest letters at rallies. That seems foolish. If you don't like him, that's fine, but looking for meaning in how large they print their motto seems like a silly thing to turn to in trying to analyze a person. If you think he's unqualified, that's one thing and I can't really argue with that, but so what if he has a slogan that he's passionate about?

comment #28

mutinyco says ...

Noah, he's no dummy. He's a Harvard law grad. He ran the Review. And he was running for president the moment he was elected to the Senate without even waiting to get reelected (which is the norm). I don't buy his slogans -- I don't think he's sincere. For the simple reason that he's too smart to actually believe such nonsense. I think that he thinks the public is gullible -- most ambitious over-achievers do.

Just not buying it. Or, as PE said in the day: "Don't believe the hype..."

comment #29

Noah says ...

Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree. I think you bring up a lot of salient points and I feel the same way about him that I do about most politicians: suspicious. But at least the things he's trying to get people to rally behind are hopeful ones. I think all politicians sell bullshit and I just prefer his brand to the other ones.

comment #30

christian says ...

"and I just prefer his brand to the other ones."

That Noah is the problem. A brand is just a marketing gimmick.

comment #31

Noah says ...

Christian, they're all running on marketing gimmicks. So, you can either choose the gimmick that you like the best or not vote at all. I'm taking these candidates at face value, believing what each of them say equally (although not really believing any of it). If you say that Obama's brand is bullshit, then so is Hillary's and so is Edwards. So it's up to the individual to figure out which bullshit they want to believe. I prefer Obama's bullshit to the others and I prefer the Dem's false promises to the Republicans'. But that's just me.

comment #32

mutinyco says ...

That's the thing. I think the reason Obama is doing better than Hillary is because he's telling people what they want to hear, while she's telling them how it is. It's an inherent dynamic to the candidate for change vs. the candidate of experience.

Perfect example. Obama says he wants to change Washington and get rid of the lobbyists. Everybody loves that -- and most people will tell you they support that. Hillary, on the other hand, simply explains that the reason there's so much lobbying money is because the Supreme Court consistently rules that money equals free speech -- and, by definition, what the SE rules is legally the constitution.

Therefore, the only way to functionally alter the monetary situation is to alter the Supreme Court and fill it with people who will vote differently. A) That would take another generation to do; B) So long as politicians need money to get elected, they're not likely to realistically support that.

It's that paradox between what most people will tell you it should be vs. how it actually is. That said, Hillary's mistake is that she doesn't make any effort to at least voice the position it's wrong in the first place.

comment #33

Noah says ...

But Mutiny, that's the difference between someone who is happy with the status-quo and is saying it's impossible to rage against the machine and somebody who wants to affect real change. Maybe you think that's bullshit, but I buy it. Maybe it'll take another generation to get anything done, but at least it'll get the ball rolling instead of keeping everything as is for the next four to eight years.

But I'm not one of those people who hates Hillary. I don't really understand that kind of hatred. I simply like Obama better. I don't like some of the things Clinton has said and I prefer Obama's immigration and health care plan. But the thing is, there's not such a difference between them politically; it's more about the personality in the end and I prefer Obama's. But I would gladly cast a ballot for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

comment #34

mutinyco says ...

Honestly, the real changes won't take place until our economy finally crashes in the next decade or so. Unfortunately, I don't think anything will be done until there's a super emergency, not unlike the way the GOP took advantage of 9/11 to implement new security measures, or how FDR used the depression to pass new economic/jobs programs.

Unfortunately, that situation is exactly what the GOP has wanted and pushed along all the while. The conservatives want to bankrupt the federal government. What I fear is that once the collapse happens, they'll be better prepared to push their agenda than the Democrats.

And, all things said and done, everything between now and then is filler.

comment #35

Noah says ...

You may be right about needing some kind of catastrophe. 9/11, as is often commented about, should have been that turning point where the country could have been united, willing to pitch in and give up some luxuries, etc.

Anyway, I think it's important to have a Democrat in the White House if for no other reason than they appoint Supreme Court Justices. Myself, being a type-1 diabetic, it's important for me to live in a country that doesn't ban stem-cell research (although there's plenty being done in the private sector). So, that's my big issue.

But, anyway, it's nice to actually have a political discussion on this forum (or any other, for that matter) that doesn't devolve into name-calling or rely on sound bites. I quite enjoyed having this spirited discussion.

comment #36

SpinDozer says ...

Yeah, well

"Obama wants the former North Carolina senator's endorsement. Badly.

Why? Check this out:

On Super Tuesday, 415,000 Democratic primary and caucus voters chose John Edwards as their candidate for president. It is true that many of those votes came on "early ballots" that were cast before the former senator from North Carolina withdrew from the race. But hundreds of thousands of Democrats and independents who were motivated enough to go and vote on February 5 did so for Edwards, knowing full well that he was out of the running.

In Oklahoma, where Edwards might well have won the primary if he had stayed in the race, the former candidate won more than 10 percent of the vote. In several of the state's larger counties, the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president took second place, running ahead of either Obama or Hillary Clinton. In the state's 2nd and 3rd congressional districts, Edwards took 13 percent of the vote, narrowly missing the 15 percent threshold needed to secure delegates.

In California, Edwards won 170,050 votes for 4 percent of the total. And in at least one of the state's congressional districts he fell just short of the 15 percent threshold.

In Arizona, Edwards won 5 percent; in Tennessee, he took 4 percent.

In Louisiana, which voted on Saturday, Edwards continued to win as much as 5 percent of the vote in some congressional districts.

Does this matter? It did in Missouri, which gave Obama an essential win by just 9,997 votes. Edwards took 16,747 votes. Had the Edwards votes broken for Clinton, she might well have won another of the key battleground states on Super Tuesday."

"Clinton does not necessarily expect an Edwards endorsement. She wants him to stay out.

Obama wants him in.

So watch for veiled references from Obama -- think "Attorney General Edwards" -- about how much he wants to work with the former senator.

And when should we expect an endorsement -- or a formal decision to stay on the sidelines?

No doubt, there will have to be an Edwards-Obama meeting. But once that happens, expect a decision in short order. Edwards is not meeting with the candidates for fun. He knows that this is the moment when he matters most. He will move sooner rather than later."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=283443

comment #37

buckzollo says ...

I am for Obama. Inspiration is good and refreshing. And who says you can't run on platitudes, the whole circus is platitude upon platitude. Obama benefits from Hillary, whom I respect, because were she not his opponent then she would be on the bandwagon with Bill and ultimately Obama would not be as alternative and likable. My concern now is that Hillary will go nuclear or "Rove" in desperation against Obama and thus soften him up for the Repubs. Hillary for VP anyone? (i know. i know.)

comment #38

mutinyco says ...

The greatest Rove tactic in the race so far was when Obama's team accused the Clintons of being racially insensitive. Brilliant tactical move to wedge the Clintons from their base of support. Hillary went from a 2:1 advantage in African-American support to a 9:1 loser in favor of Obama. Wheels fell off the wagon right there.

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

Is anyone really surprised that Edwards would pull a Lieberman on the Obama voters? He cares more about his ego than about winning.

christian: "I think losing a child and supporting a wife with cancer makes him somewhat tougher than Jeff or Josh."

Just not tough enough to vote against war.

"That Noah is the problem. A brand is just a marketing gimmick."

Then I'll take a gimmick which acknowledges me, rather than oneself.

Josh: "And here, Christian, is the typical leftist's concern for the poor: "Let's show our concern for the poor by giving them somebody else's money!"

That somebody else usually steals money from the poor, so it's only fair.

"And you know Bush and Cheney haven't donated anything to charity? Really?"

They donate to rich white Republicans...

bents: "Say what you will about Edwards, at least the man knew when to cash out his chips and go home -"

No, he didn't, or it wouldn't take him two Presidential elections to get the picture that he's not wanted.

mutiny: "But, honestly, the more I see of him, constantly surrounded by his mind numbingly childish slogans, the less I like him. I think his campaign is manipulative, cynical sloganeering crap."

Yeah, why can't he focus on Hillary's race?

"And I think if he's elected, he'll be Carter II, a one-termer."

The public had a different mentality when Carter lost the second election.

"Compare rally photos, Noah. McCain's podium simply has his name and website. Obama's says in big letters: Change we can believe in!"

So McCain has no vision, and...?

"I just don't like him."

Because he's black.

"And he's not qualified."

Because he's not married to or a son of another politician.

Others sincerely buy his routine. I don't. And he's not qualified.

"One-term if he gets through the GOP attacks. One-term."

If he gets through the GOP attacks, then it's gonna be their candidates begging for one term.

"And he was running for president the moment he was elected to the Senate without even waiting to get reelected"

So was Hillary. What's your point?

"I don't buy his slogans -- I don't think he's sincere. For the simple reason that he's too smart to actually believe such nonsense."

Yeah, we need more C-students like Dubya.

"I think the reason Obama is doing better than Hillary is because he's telling people what they want to hear, while she's telling them how it is."

I think you've got that mixed up...

"Obama says he wants to change Washington and get rid of the lobbyists. Everybody loves that -- and most people will tell you they support that. Hillary, on the other hand, simply explains that the reason there's so much lobbying money is because the Supreme Court consistently rules that money equals free speech -- and, by definition, what the SE rules is legally the constitution."

I think you're misinterpreting the situation. He wants to limit their influence, not silence them.

"Therefore, the only way to functionally alter the monetary situation is to alter the Supreme Court and fill it with people who will vote differently."

Or draft a constitutional amendment.

"Unfortunately, that situation is exactly what the GOP has wanted and pushed along all the while. The conservatives want to bankrupt the federal government. What I fear is that once the collapse happens, they'll be better prepared to push their agenda than the Democrats."

The collapse has already happened, and they're more disorganized and limp than ever.

"The greatest Rove tactic in the race so far was when Obama's team accused the Clintons of being racially insensitive."

And they weren't?

"Brilliant tactical move to wedge the Clintons from their base of support. Hillary went from a 2:1 advantage in African-American support to a 9:1 loser in favor of Obama."

Hillary lost, because she downplayed the voters in South Carolina.

Abbey: "Second, he does, in fact, have a lot of sway still (despite your statements to the contrary), especially in the south (Texas, anyone?)."

He didn't win in Texas.

comment #40

Josh Massey says ...

"I think losing a child and supporting a wife with cancer makes him somewhat tougher than Jeff or Josh."

I think not being a gutless dithering douchebag pussy makes me somewhat tougher than Edwards.

I do dither from time to time, though.

comment #41

christian says ...

Well, isn't "a gutless dithering douchebag pussy" kinda in the eye of the beholder?

That's how I see Bush and Cheney, but you Josh may think they're real men. Happens when you're raised by insecure dominant males. Or somethin'.

comment #42

mutinyco says ...

At the risk of even acknowledging your last post...

You know something, D.Z. You just crossed a line. My comments have been consistently even-tempered (congratulated by Noah for the civility of debate, though he has an opposing view point), and, even if you disagree with them, they're well-reasoned. But you just made an accusation in your last post that crosses a boundary.

And for that, you have lost any credibility -- not just as a commenter on this board, but as a rational human being worthy of being taken seriously on any matter.

Anything short of a complete apology anchored in genuine humility is unacceptable. And without one immediately forthcoming, it will be a badge on your character. And you should be shunned.

comment #43

Jay T. says ...

These things are NEVER as simple as they look - remember, it's politics, so I'm sure there are some angles at play in terms of Edwards future that you're completely unaware of.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

mutiny: I'm sorry, but every time I hear the term "under-qualified", it comes off as a euphemism for him not being white and well-connected, since those are the only reasons I'm given for picking his competition over him. I also find it hypocritical that, at the same time that you claim he's not "ready" for the job, you also imply that his Ivy League education means that he's less trustworthy than other candidates who also went to similar universities. Noah has also noted your double standards against him in regard to his campaign. But I apologize for speaking out of turn and offending you.

comment #45

mutinyco says ...

Apology accepted.

Now back to bed, I think. Arguments on blogs are one thing. Fighting the flu is another.

comment #46

Chris Willman says ...

Where is this "reportedly going to endorse Clinton" coming from? There is no way in hell Edwards would endorse Clinton in a tight race. It's clear he hates her. After the first primary, he did everything in his power to marginalize her, saying it was an Obama/Edwards race from then on. If he is meeting with both candidates, it's just for the appearance of fairness. If he endorses anyone, it will obviously be Obama.

comment #47

D.Z. says ...

Chris: "There is no way in hell Edwards would endorse Clinton in a tight race."

He endorsed the war...

comment #48

BurmaShave says ...

I had a girlfriend who had a dithering douchebag pussy. It made intimacy very hard for her. You guys are awesome. christian, noah and mutiny fighting for the future of the party haha. D., you continue to be insane.

comment #49

Dave Polands Gut says ...

McCain is going to rout Obama. A loss of epic McGovern proportions.

comment #50

christian says ...

And if that happens, I know where the ass kicking will start.

comment #51

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Love the "Big Country" comparisons. It does seem like it takes an eternity before Peck finally
grows some balls and a backbone (the moment when he invites Chuck Heston for a going-away farewell
punch out) Today's political figures should start
spouting "Big Country" lines...

George W.Bush: Did you want me,Pa?
Bush Sr: I did....when you was BORN!

Obama To Hilary: I'm stuck in your craw and you
can't spit me out!
Hilary to Obama: Here me now...you set foot in
one more primary, this convention's gonna run red with blood.