Back in 2003, John Edwards announced his presidential candidacy on The Daily Show with John Stewart. Well, he'll be there again tonight - watch it! Will he do the same thing again?
Update: No, he didn't. But he said to watch his website over the next few weeks.
Update 2: Apparently, the appearance on the show moved some people to like him more and pay more attention to him. Shakespeare's Sister is one, which makes me very happy. Read what she said.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The far right smear machine against John Edwards has moved into territory close to home: attacking Edwards by attacking his newly hired bloggers, Amanda Marcotte (of Pandagon fame) and Melissa McEwan (from the equally eminent Shakespeare's Sister). The big media (cable news of all stripes, AP and…
Ah, why do I have to be so busy on a news-filled day (no, not Anna Nicole Smith)? I barely saw the computer today. I'd get home, have about 5 minutes before I have to go out again and so on. NPR did not mention Edwards until 4pm or so (that I heard in the car), so when I first got home I only had…
The following is a transcript of the remarks I delivered to the Texas Aggie Democrats at Texas A&M University on September 5, 2007 (and I've added some links). I start out talking a little bit about the work I did in the organization when I was a student there, but I eventually get into the…
Since half the blogs on the net seem to be making lists of their favorite movie quotes, I thought I'd add some of mine. Some movies are just goldmines of great lines - Caddyshack, almost any Kevin Smith movie, Bull Durham. Herewith some of my absolute favorites, without the title of the movie so…
Superficially, your advocacy of Edwards makes you either a fanboy stalker or someone maneuvering for the position of scientific adviser for the neo-scientific administrations of the future.
I'll assume advisory -- In this advisory capacity, do you see yourself cut from the bolt of Kissinger, Moreau or Strangelove?
What do you call a science dominated government? Philocracy? Fascism?
I'm curious what dystopia would develop when a bunch of scientists, each smarter than the next, vie for limited funding and predominance and seek to take decisions out of the hands of the scientifically illiterate masses.
Ha, ha. No, I am not vying for any position. He's my neighbor. I know him and Elizabeth. I like them. I think he'd be a great President. I cannot help him in any substantial manner, but one thing I can do is promote him on my blog. Why not?
So, stalker fanboy vs. vying for position is a false binary choice - there are other possibilities you did not think of.
I suffer from a distinct lack of imagination. It did not occur to me that he was a neighbor -- choice C. But still, I have neighbors and I stay out of their sh*t unless I want something.
I read your blog occasionally and I'm curious to the dystopia incipient in a bunch of eggheads influencing public policy and herding the rest of us into cattle cars for our own benefit.
I find it an odd assumption that suport for a political candidate must mean that something is desired from the candidate. Can't people just support a candidate that they think would make a good president (sentator, representative, whatever)?
Are you feeling ok, Ted? Drink any suspicious Kool-Aid lately?
Kool-Aid? Don't think so.
Just curious as to how science and public policy melds in the American system. This isn't really a confrontational question -- when I read many blogposts, they're either in the TLDR category or have no meat on them whatsoever. I'm looking for a happy medium.
I think that I support the idea that public policy should be guided by science; I just don't know a) how much science guidance is too much, b) has anyone identified scientific fields that aren't promoted by lobbyists looking for IP advantage and licensing and c) how it can actually work in the US system, being deeply anti-intellectual, demagogic and for sale to the highest bidder that it is.