Colbert Goes To South Carolina
Stephen Colbert went to South Carolina this weekend to promote his favorite-son candidacy, and he extolled the state's virtues and potential.
"In the 19th century, South Carolina was the first to secede. In the 21st we will be the first to succeed," said Colbert. "First to secede. First to succeed. I own the copyright on that phrase, if you use it you must pay me a royalty."
The campaign of South Carolina's other native son, John Edwards, is hitting back/playing along. Edwards spokesperson Teresa Wells attacked Colbert for taking the corporate sponsorship of Doritos.
"What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won't grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry," Wells said. "As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests."
Dear Lord, this is not happening during one of the most critical Presidential campaigns I've ever seen.
October 28, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well what do you know, turns out Obama and H.R. Clinton are both in the pocket of big munchies:
October 28, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a miricle that the jack-booted, 'Who would Jesus bomb', diet-bot Huckleberry . . . Sorry . . . Republican candidate Huckabee did not do the anti-snack food agle first . . . Just shows us who the most clariant thinker in the both bunches is . . .
October 28, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is Pat Paulson when you need him?
October 28, 2007 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
the only reason this is happening is cause the election is already over.
smart money is already saying Hillary wins and wins BIG.
October 28, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
demwinger,
Diebold is a corporation and C.inton is the bedfellow of artifical folk who masquerade as humans all over the world . . . You may be correct . . . But I prefer than we hold an election or two between here and the elevation of Saint Corporate Conspiritor.
Every coupla cycles a comedian or two get into the show . . . This year it is Stephen Colbert and Stephanie Miller/Cici Goldwater. No bid whoop.
October 28, 2007 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demwinger
You are so right. The polls are right.
americans need not go to the polls and vote.
After all the Diebold machines have been programmed and we need not cast nary a
vote.
Hillary is the winner, plain and simple.
The entire primary process is a waste.
No votes are needed...just let the polls decide for us.
We can all stay home in November. Hillary has already won.
Not a single vote cast and she is President-elect.
October 28, 2007 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Wingers: A short reality check. Repeat after me: While there is a political eternity until electon day it is true that if the primary and general elections were held today Hillary would be elected.
The voters still have to choose but the current polls show that Hillary Can win. The voters just have to decide whether they want her or somebody else.
October 29, 2007 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is a co-publicity stunt by Edwards and Colbert but it does not seem like the things that major contenders do.
When you are arguing,even if it is tongue in cheek,with the fictional TV persona of a comedian, you are not winning.
October 29, 2007 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's kinda nice to see a campaign having a bit of fun with this. Sometimes the campaigns can be so rigid. Sit back and enjoy a chuckle. We've had so few over the last year or two.
October 29, 2007 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, look at all these whining "freedom lovers" on this board who just can't stand the FACT that the majority of liberal progressive Democrats prefers a strong woman candidate with the 12th most liberal voting record in the Senate and a lifetime of activism and advocacy for women's rights, children's issues, healthcare, and the plight of our nations' poor. I understand we have an open primary system that will chose our party's nominee. Problem with that?
I prefer Hillary as the most proven and electable candidate. I think that it's critical that a Democrat become President this time and I will campaign for and support any Democrat from this outstanding field (even, ugh, Edwards), who my Democratic brothers and sisters choose through this process.
Good Jah! It must be really depressing to have to deal with all us incredibly stupid people. Heck, I have been a proud supporter of shady corporate Democratic ethics (if you will) since 1968.
I say, go out and campaign with all your heart and shining brilliance but try to find a just ray of light from the candidate who actually wins the nomination, if it's not your guy. Are you saying we're not cruising for a major improvement if Hillary is elected?
Take heart, freedom lovers.
Obama in 2016!
October 29, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is the punch line from so many Clinton supporters that she's an improvement on Bush? That's a very low bar to get over.
And given that her record in the Senate is checklisted as very progressive ... except for what I am sure are a few "glitches" like her helping to amend the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution so it would pass by a wide margin, co-sponsoring the flawed Lieberman-McCain global warming bill, and support for FTA's if they are merely very bad, like the US-Jordan FTA, rather than as grossly bad as CAFTA ... sending her back to the Senate would seem to be a win-win for progressive politics.
October 29, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did PepsiCo chair Steven Reinemund give $6,900 dollars to McCain? Isn't that not so legal?
October 29, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
Well done Edwards!
Honestly if he keeps this up he might get some extra press.
Nice to see a campaign with a sense of humor.
October 29, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
BruceMcF said:
"Why is the punch line from so many Clinton supporters that she's an improvement on Bush? That's a very low bar to get over."
Why do you think this is such an astute dismissal of my point to try and cheer up the hand-wringing, progressiver-than-thou Hillary haters here.
Why do those of us who enthusiastically support her have to be subjected to being called stupid or "artifical folk who masquerade as humans" by the supporters of the so-called agent of change candidates.
That name-calling stuff sounds like the same old lack of civility and respect that is helping to send our country swirling slowly down the drain.
Mine is a plea to look for some common ground and to cheer up a little. Every candidate has their warts, especially the ones with the most experience and longest records in politics. You can find things to dislike about any of the candidates, but they're still excellent candidates.
For example, I don't like Hillary's vote for Iraq War authorization or her voting for the Patriot Act. That said, overall I think she's a reasonable, experienced, thoughtful, and strong candidate who votes correctly on most of the issues I feel are important. Also, she's the most electable and in the darkest Rovian recesses of my brain, I relish sticking another Clinton in the eye of our tormentors over the last 16 years.
Hillary supporters show a lot more respect for the other candidates and their supporters than vice versa here. Look at any post and comments on here to verify this fact.
Show some respect and find some common ground here and stop being relentlessly nasty about her, her motives, and her supporters - that is apparently, most Democrats.
I know that's a high bar I'm asking you to consider jumping over.
October 29, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This campaign shows the brilliance of that great philosopher Hunter S. Thompson "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro".
October 29, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK GOD this is happening during this election. Somebody is finally highlighting how truly stupid this entire show- US politics not the Report- is.
October 30, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colbert should be in the South Carolina debate(s), and should actually hold his own during and after them. His spin room appearance would be as entertaining as his participation.
A vote for Colbert is actually a vote for sanity. A sane person pretending to be an insane conservative debating actual insane (cronic liars) candidates who won't speak what is on their minds? Sanity. And if John Edwards can continue to play honestly, power to him!
October 30, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only would I vote for Stephen Colbert over any candidate (except for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich - neither of which will get their respective party nomination), but Cool Ranch Doritos are possibly the most delicious snack food ever - and that alone would win my vote :) Besides, I'd rather support Doritos than Diebold, or any other demonstrative corporation. All Doritos does is supply us with a fabulous chip!
October 30, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smart money may be telling you that HR Clinton wins and wins big, but didn't they say that 4 years ago about Dean before a single vote was cast? I can only hope the same happens this time. I wish this country and the Dems would wake up: Hillary is more of the same as Bush and the past 2 other presidents (dad bush and husband clinton). Check out BIden who actually has decades of experience working with foreign governments as Foreign Relations committee member; take a look at Kucinich who actually stands for convictions. Come on folks, don't let the media define this one for you so that we elect another political hack like Clinton.
October 30, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink