Reply #8: Green: so you are saying, Edwards is running for president

[CreekDog]

And he is advocating to get elected to that job.

Well, if that was a disqualification, all the other candidates are eliminated too.

So, that would be a stupid disqualification.

So, let's get on to real things, like what his positions are, if they are worthwhile and what his chances of enacting them. Let's do this with Edwards, the other candidates and figure out who to support based on that.

If you want to also think about how wealthy a candidate is, how much their hair costs (does Hillary get to spend more than Edwards, hmmmm?), then add that into your equation. But to make decisions based on these things means that you are too stupid to be listened to because by making these the critical decision points, you have said that all other positions are lesser or equal value to hair and wealth.

And that is stupid. If I choose Clinton because Edwards is wealthy and worked on a hedge fund and has expensive haircuts and makeup, but Clinton is wealthy, worked in business and seems like she spends on her hair, clothes and makeup (word is out from the anti-Edwards camp on whether it's okay for her to spend on these things because she doesn't claim to have been born middle class). Oh yes, and maybe you will pick Obama, he too is wealthy, but not too much, though it is growing. Word is out on whether he spends too much on personal grooming.

Yes, when that bunch of carp starts edging out policies, political abilities and actual (not perceived) character, it all sounds like a bunch of malarky.

Pick the best candidate based on the things they are supposed to do and their ability to do them and their honesty in living up to what they say they will do.

But not based on how much they have in the bank. Egads.