South Carolina-is it important?

[Blackadar]

I think Obama usurped Edwards.  John's positioning was the champion of the underclass, the photogenic one and the alternative candidate to Hillary.  Obama stomped him on all of those positions.  I'm sure that many assume he's a champion of the underclass based on his race alone.  Note I'm not commenting on whether that's correct or the ignorance of that assumption, but this is one of those times that perception = reality.  He's very photogenic with a powerful voice, so he quickly became a hit on the campaign trail.  As such, he became the alternnative to Hillary - and I think the Dems only needed one alternative.

Plus I think a lot of Dems and Independents are uneasy with Edwards.  He quit the Senate to run for President, showing a lack of service at a time where strong Dem voices were needed in opposition to Bush.  And his $400 haircuts combined with his "rich lawyer" status makes people uneasy about his true commitment to the middle/lower class.  I think that had he stayed a Senator, he'd have a more robust resume to get away from the "rich lawyer" perception, but he didn't.  Also, I think he was banking on the demand for an outsider candidate in 2008, but that's not really the case.  As such, he's really not what many people are looking for right now - had he stayed in the Senate, I think he'd have been a much stronger contender. 

[unbreakable]

And his $400 haircuts combined with his "rich lawyer" status makes people uneasy about his true commitment to the middle/lower class.

So how much does each candidate spend on their haircuts?  Since that's never been disclosed or even asked, it's really a bullshit issue.  Think about it: does any candidate have time to spend waiting two weeks for a bad haircut to grow out?  Of course not.  Also, they have to maintain a level of consistency which not even celebrities have to: they need to look the same during the entire campaign.  So the haircut thing was one huge exercise in attack reporting.

I think that had he stayed a Senator, he'd have a more robust resume to get away from the "rich lawyer" perception, but he didn't.  Also, I think he was banking on the demand for an outsider candidate in 2008, but that's not really the case.  As such, he's really not what many people are looking for right now - had he stayed in the Senate, I think he'd have been a much stronger contender. 

Definitely.  It just seems like a move which takes you "out of the game".  And the timing was awful- not only did he leave, but the seat was lost to a Republican.  Plus, staying would have given him a stronger track record to run on.


[edit] BTW, my bad.  I said Edwards came in second in New Hampshire.  He came in second in Iowa.

[Blackadar]

And his $400 haircuts combined with his "rich lawyer" status makes people uneasy about his true commitment to the middle/lower class.

So how much does each candidate spend on their haircuts?  Since that's never been disclosed or even asked, it's really a bullshit issue.  Think about it: does any candidate have time to spend waiting two weeks for a bad haircut to grow out?  Of course not.  Also, they have to maintain a level of consistency which not even celebrities have to: they need to look the same during the entire campaign.  So the haircut thing was one huge exercise in attack reporting.

It was only an issue because of John's spoken stance on being the champion of the middle class and the poor.  The middle class and the poor can't fathom spending $400 on a haircut and it made it much harder to take him seriously on that stance.  Actually, I think he's probably pretty serious about that as an issue, but the haircut cost makes him look like a hypocrite.

[unbreakable]

So you can't be a champion of the poor unless you get your hair cut at SuperCuts?

[CSL]

Yeah, thats a bullshit arguement.

[Blackadar]

So you can't be a champion of the poor unless you get your hair cut at SuperCuts?

Not to a lot of people, no.

And before you start down that path, note I said "but the haircut cost makes him look like a hypocrite" - not that he is.  But I've heard that from quite a few Dems and Independents here in John's home state of North Carolina, where his base of support should have been strongest (and isn't).  It ain't my opinion, but it is the opinion of quite a few others.  You may not agree, but your vote isn't the only one that counts. 

Me, I'm an Independent who is a Hillary supporter, but I think she's just about done.  So I'll go with Obama as long as he picks a reasonable (moderate) and experienced running mate.

[unbreakable]

LOL, that's funny, because I'm going the other way on that.  I'm looking for him NOT pick a moderate.

But he probably will, because strategically speaking, he's getting my vote one way or another.  But unless they think they can win without picking a moderate (which previous polls have shown they can), the best strategy is to pick a moderate.

But strategy aside, I don't think the nation can take much more of what we've seen from "moderates" in the past eight years.


Here's how I think it will likely play out.  IF McCain wins, Obama will probably go with a moderate.  If not, the race isn't even going to be close, and he can pick whoever he wants (even Hillary).

So as usual, I'm cheering for Romney.  The man has a passion for bashing Republicans which rivals even my own.