Friday, March 23, 2007

Weekend Eggs and Links

President Bush has a lovely, well-propped press conference in response to the House passing an Iraq spending bill, remembers he can veto bills.

Federalism stinks, doesn't it Mr. President?

Vilsack expected to endorse Hillary Clinton on Monday. So expected it hurts. Too bad all Vilsack's voters have already wandered to the Edwards camp. But classy timing, Tom, if anything.

Rudy re-designs his webpage. Clean look and new logo, but seems under construction. So does the forming biography of his present wife. I think Rudy should use an exclamation point after his name--it just seems to be a Republican thing to do.

Congressman Tancredo hints he will join the field for the GOP nomination. So many awful choices, so little time. Come on Hagel, run!

For presidential campaign junkies, this site provides some great reminders of when the candidate fields were plentiful, like 2008 will be (especially 1988 and 1992).

Howard Fineman of Newsweek had a good take on the Edwards press conference. Saturday's New York Times will have a balanced, thoughtful look at possible voter emotions surrounding the Edwardses decision to carry on.

As of Friday afternoon, Obama had a classy front and center link to his message of best wishes for Elizabeth Edwards (including photo) on his homepage. Well done, Senator. Update: The link was gone as of 530pm PST Friday.

Final question on the Elizabeth Edwards announcement--do you think that if Edwards was the clear frontrunner, like Hillary, he would be second guessed for continuing the campaign?

1 comment:

Chris said...

a well-put concluding question, mr. justice. i'll add my vote to the "no" camp.
a follow-up question: what is it, especially on matters deeply personal, that compels many to seriously think that people should do what they say just because they say so? don't get me wrong, i'm all for everyone stopping at stop signs, but am curious why just because lynn d. from spokane wants someone to do something, that they should then do it? maybe the question is: what is it inside lynn d. that compels her or him to think they should be able to issue if not impose an opinion on someone else on a matter not personally related to the one issuing the opinion?
the war on terror, i suppose.