I don't see why they ought not be eligible.
I'm not sure whether I can comment on that dirtball without violating our no-politics rule, other than to say that I'm thankful that his duplicity was consistent enough for voters to detect on substance as well.
They're the only publication who actually looked for the story but they're apparently ineligible because they're a magazine. Oh, and probably because the national media are embarrassed they got scooped by the National Enquirer.Adam, I think the general bipartisan consensus is that he's a dirtbag narcissist who had no business being that close to the Presidency.
Agreed with Adam and Meghan, and I'm one whose political priorities lined up with what Edwards professed. He made Bill Clinton look like a rank amateur in the recklessness department, and his ego-driven damage to his family (and potentially his party and the country) is astounding.Also agreed that the big-media outrage is about being scooped by a tabloid rag. If another publication had broken the story it would not be an issue.
Pardon my naivete, but shoudn't the reporting be weighed along with some actual skill at writing? Since I rememebr the level of the story being about that of your standard small-town high school newspaper, I wouldn't worry about their winning.
A. Finn, as usual, is exactly right. To me, the Enquirer absolutely should be eligible, but it equally absolutely shouldn't win anything if its writers can't write. B. It kind of defeats the point of the no-politics rule if you say "if we didn't have this no-politics rule, this is what I would say." C. I'm going out on a limb and saying the previous comment is spam. If somebody kills it before I remember how, I'm not talking about Finn's comment.
I have deleted the unwanted comment, which was spam. And technically, I said nothing about the substance of Edwards' politics, only that he was duplicitous in how he practiced them.
This, naturally, reminds us of one of my favorite comment threads of all time here.
How kind of you to say, Isaac.