[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070408" target="_blank">Art Contest</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> April 08, 2007

Despite the fact that he is a first-term do-nothing, Senator Barak Obama has so far raised more money for his primary campaign than favored frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
<br>
<br>Mrs. Clinton has spent so much time plotting her rise to power, and is often praised for having the most sophisticated campaign team in the country. It would be quite ironic if she was to ultimately lose the nomination to some guy no one had even heard of three years ago. She worked so hard to win over the establishment only to find that an establishment candidate isn\'t what Democrats want anymore.

[RUEZ]

What the deuce?

[sasquatch2]

What makes anyone think the demoscrats want either one?

[Murray_Smith]

The media.

[Rhoffman]

Agreed. As an Illinoisan, I honestly don't understand Obama's appeal. Yeah, I won't deny that he's a great public speaker and has good charisma, but I honestly hoped that people could get by the cosmetics and look at a candidate's core stances. I guess I should've known by now that I can't expect too much from the average voter though.... I guess maybe those monarchists that are pissed off at J.J. might just have a point after all.

But, I do agree with Mr. Bigfoot. Hilary's not exactly the most popular person out there even amongst Democrats (the same being true for all candidates either popularity-wise or in name recognition), but with so many candidates in the field and with so much money being raised, by the primaries the Democratic Party will already be solidly be behind their candidates in cliques that make high school look tame. Especially with the fact that over half the total convention delegates will be decided by the first full week of February (and combining with the fact that most Democrat primaries aren't winner-take all, a fact that the GOP doesn't have to worry about), the system for this season's inherently poised to create a deadlock in the convention.

Unless someone really steamrolls the contests right off the bat, we might very well be looking at the first truly important convention really since the GOP in 1980 (or more appropriately, 1912 when TR had a chance to unseat Taft). All the while, the GOP's system of most of their primaries being winner-take-all would allow for candidate X to win the nod if he merely wins enough states, as so long as he has a tiny plurality he would receive everything. With that in mind, the Dems are probably screwed and its entirely of their own making. They might be doing exactly what no one thought was possible even just a few months ago: shoot themselves in the foot again and allow another Republican to win the White House after the debacle of Dubya.

That being said, I'm still pulling for Richardson.

[Psudo]

I love the title of this thread.

Less sarcastically, I love that J.J.'s drawing again. Regular updates! Woo!

But I don't really care about the topic itself. There aren't any clear '08 front runners for either party, and won't be until the primaries and caucuses get underway. Then we'll start seeing how average voters think rather than how politicos with deep pockets think.

[Canadaka]

*fixed topic title, not sure what happened. Maybe JJ forgot to enter a title when he posted the comic on his site the first time.*

[Kjorteo]

Hillary is just...her husband was a good President overall, I think, but she has way too many stances and issues I hate. A lot of people see it as a matter of strategy--whether they should support Hillary now becuase they do/don't think she'll do well in the general election--but I just don't like her, period. If I was literally the only voter in the country, and had the power to decide who goes to the White House after willing the popular vote 1 to 0, then I still wouldn't support her. She is bad, money or no money, support or no support, frontrunner or no frontrunner.

Obama is...hypocritical. During the whole reign of Bush, a lot of Democrats have been whining about how personality beat politics and how that's a bad thing because, damnit, issues matter. How Gore was the smart guy with the smart ideas but he lost only because he was portrayed as a boring nerd, and how the race was more "Who would you like to have a drink with" than "Who do you think has good ideas for this country." Fair enough--that's a good point, and I agree with it. However, you can't say that in one breath, and then go on to support the less-than-one-term Senator whose only achievements are winning an almost uncontested throwaway race and being good at speaking. In the sense of charisma vs. substance, he's the George W. Bush of the left.

I'm with Rhoffman in that Richardson is who it's all about. Especially because I actually live in the state he governs, and can say he's done a fairly good job running it. He and Edwards are the closest of anyone on either side to matching my beliefs (no one will ever be perfect unless I run personally, which won't happen, but...you know,) and Richardson has the credentials to back up the opinions.