Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Is Edwards Smarter than a Bucket of Hair?

Bob Shrum is batting 0 for 8 in presidential campaigns he has run for the Dems, so his oracular judgments and aspersions of some former candidates/colleagues might be taken with a grain or two of salt. But Shrum's new book No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner has a few payback passages on John-boy Edwards, the average soccer-mom's imaginary sex-toy. "It's the hair, stupid!"

And John-boy's fight against poverty proceeds at full-throttle focus as his investment in sunken treasure may make him a multi-multi-millionaire instead of a simple po' boy with a 28,000 sq.ft. manse in the rolling hills of Carolina.

Even the ultra-left San Fran Chronicle discusses Edwards' recent run of bad headlines after he had parlayed his wife's illness a few weeks back into feel-good soft-rock positive MSM blather.

Now this empty suit with good hair declares that the Global War on Terror was just a bumper-sticker con employed by the Bush Administration to trick gullible citizens into believing that an Islamist menace actually threatened the USA. Next step might be to join Rosie O'D in becoming a "truther," given his shallow credentials, which Bob Shrum describes as "A Clinton who has not read the books."

Is Edwards the Paris Hilton candidate in trousers?

3 comments :

BillT said...

"Is Edwards the Paris Hilton candidate in trousers?"

Boy I wish. He's a menace who will say anything to get elected.

Frederick said...

You can do better than this, boy. And next time I stop by, I hope you shall.

Idont said...

Check out what I found on wikipedia: The War on Terrorism (also known as the War Against Terror and War on Terror) is an umbrella term coined by the Bush administration to refer to the various military, political, and legal actions taken to "curb the spread of terrorism" following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Both the phrase “War on Terrorism” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law.[1][2][3]