blargh
sick today. probably has something to do with the fact that i ran 12 miles on saturday morning then proceeded to go drink 3500 beers at beer day. anyway, am spending the time catching up on some blogs and rejoicing over the kerry-edwards ticket.
and you've got to love this "liberal" bias from this AP blurb on the yahoo news homepage:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday selected former rival John Edwards to be his running mate, calling the rich former trial lawyer and rookie senator a man who showed "guts and determination and political skill" in his unsuccessful race against Kerry for the party's nomination.
may the press remind you: there's nothing more to this man than a dishonest trizillionaire trial lawyer who happened to suck at politics so much that he lost to john kerry.

Comments
actually the blurb doesn't say anything about "dishonest" - that's just what you imply from the description "trial lawyer". i mean, if that's how you feel about them, then run with it.
I don't get it.
no, it's not how i feel about trial lawyers (though it is how the bush campaign feels about them obviously), but the overall negative tone is there. i'm stretching, but i still think the "rich" and "unsuccessful" are unnecessary. especially later on, the article has a paragraph devoted to the fact that both edwards and kerry are wealthy.
Yeah, we now officially have an all-multimillionaire presidential election.
No, Nader doesn't count.
John Edwards's wealth is pork n' beans compared to Dick Cheney's. Where's that write-up?
the only reason it has been written up about kerry is because he has tried to say he is not wealthy, because of his tax return. well, since he's not really independently wealthy, it's not going to be shown on his tax return - why don't we check his wife's. her money is his money.
maybe they are actually trying to say that edwards was successful despite the fact that he was just a trial lawyers. most trial lawyers don't make that much.
At least Edwards didn't go to Yale.
Post A Comment