|
..from the fact that they are the least qualified, least substansial candidates in the field.
A two-term and a one-term Senator arguing about who votes more, while they share the stage with 30-year Senators.
They argue about who has more Foreign Policy advisors, while they share the stage with a man who takes calls from two Pakistani leaders when the government collapses.
They argue about who screwed up more with Iran policy, while they share the stage with two senators who voted No on Kyl-Lieberman - one of which mentioned that Iran was lesser concern than Pakistan - BEFORE Musharraf's coup and BEFORE the Iran intelligence report came out.
They argue about which one hired the sleaziest K-Streeters, while they share the stage with a man who's never met with a lobbyist and has his sister running his campaign.
They argue about who has the best plan for Iraq, while they share the stage with the man who's drafted the only Iraq solution to pass the House and Senate.
They argue about who would concede more to the GOP, then they argue over who would get more crossover votes.
It sounds like the top-two are willing to talk about EVERYTHING BUT their achievements, because they know they share the stage with a more experienced, more accomplished second-tier - and if those candidates ever got any media attention, they may actually have to defend their policies against more skillful policymakers. The best way to avoid that is to bicker about - well - anything.
They know the media AND THE BLOGGERS are eating all this shit up.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
