Who's More of a Sitting Duck for the McCain Juggernaut?
Filed under: US Elections
Barack Obama has just been announced to have been the most liberal senator in 2007. And indeed, that comes as little surprise given his church's ties to Louis Farrakhan.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports about Billary's alleged corrupt deal with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev to funnel his country's uranium to Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra in exchange for Clinton's blessing Nazarbayev's bid to enter civilized Western society, thereby netting Clinton $30 million from Giustra by way of kickback for his charitable foundation. The Times must feel somewhat snakebit, having just endorsed Billary to retake the White House (apparently the Times are a bunch of closet Republicans, since the last time Billary was in office it accomplished far more Republican initiatives than Democrat, including most of all delivering the Congress on a silver platter).
On the Republican side, California governor "The Terminator" has endorsed John McCain, who's on an incredible roll towards the nomination after Mitt Romney embarrassed himself in the latest debate, totally failing to capitalize on conservative worries about McCain (that are, as they should, already starting to dissipate as McCain collects neo-con endorsements) and faced with two candidates who seem ideally suited for him to take out in November. And that's not all the good news. Democrat hearts should be all a twitter as it seems that there may be not one but two third party candidates, Mike Bloomberg and Ralph Nader. And they are. Such candidates will only divide the anti-Bush "alternative" vote and further empower McCain, who can himself tap deeply into the independent undercurrent.
Indeed, McCain looks across the aisle, he must be hard-pressed to decide which opponent would be more of sitting duck for him to blast out of the water. No credentials over here, seething conservative fury over there. What do you think?