micahIer (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

YOU SUCK

Ericjpomeroy (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Sooooo the Candidate for "change" picked a dude who has been in the senate for 33 years?

micahler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

They're nothing but a buncha rabble-rousing idiots that like to throw their weight around when someone else is taking the lumps. The PUMAS (GOP infiltrators), the holdouts (deranged Clintonites that got emotionally attached during the impeachment proceeding), and the paid shills (shameless whores) - fuck 'em all. You'e much more eloquent than I in conveying your valid reasoning. Keep up the good work, and watch out for the imposters. There's at least two of 'em traipsing around here.Yo, Joe!

micahler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

The same fair-weather Demsdummies are attempting to take Obama to task over shit they'd have never worried about if the Clintons were the heads of the ticket. I knew this pattern now. These people are loopy in the head. I don't listen to them myself. I ignore them.

micahler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

These same people pulled the same shit in '04 with Kerry, whom I supported fully, but knew that he would lose. The Dems had no real compelling case for disputing Bush's machine back then. Kerry did not lose, as much as Bush had a job to finish. Once the the facade began to fade away, people began seeing that the GOP and the Bush administration were doing nothing more than promoting partisan pipe dreams, they started rejecting it all. It's still happening to this day.

micahler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

The media and the Clinton sycophants went after Gore big time. Meanwhile, Bush's daughters were being discussed, to try and ring in the young GOP cavemen. There were plenty of anecdotes about Bush's personal foibles, but nothing about his past business failings. Then there was his cooking muthas left and right over in Texas. It all made him look like there was something brewing with Bush. What was Gore but a Clinton hanger-on?

micahler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

People in the media were dogging Gore out big time. Meanwhile, Bush's two daughters were being discussed, but not Bush's past business failures necessarily. Then there was his cooking muthas left and right in Texas and whatnot. They made him look capable. What was Gore but a hanger-on of Billy Jeff? I take responsibility for my vote for Buchanan (a waste), but I never disparaged Gore, only the Dems that seemed to take all the innuendo about him seriously enough to damper party excitement.

micahler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Gore was too "wooden" for many, or too presumptuous. I didn't think so, but my emotions got the better of me, and I did not vote for the better of the two REAL candidates. Chalk that up to naivety. Gore literally had no...drama connected to him, so that's why I felt many people were disparaging him so. He was what he was: a decent individual running for president. He wasn't the son of his father, a former president, nor was he a ne'er-do-well like Bill. That read as bland to some. Whatever!

micahler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

First off, I am the one true Micahler, Joe. Thanks for the heads up on the battered bozo still posing as me.I'd like to add that I've been voting in presidential elections since 2000, when I voted for Buchanan (it's a long, emotional story having to do with my reaction to the Elian saga). I'd actually noticed the...well, let's just say it, the Clinton sycophants undermining Gore because he distanced himself from Bill.

procrastinator11 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Go Joe!