http://disqus.com/by/csheng11/enFri, 06 Jun 2008 03:05:41 -0000http://blog.amandacongdon.com/post/37362774#comment-605780<p>Depends on what his advisers decide he needs most. If they're really afraid of Clinton supporters bolting, they might pick her, but they could also mitigate the impact by taking someone who appeals to blue-collar whites, like John Edwards. Then again, if they're afraid of the negative impact of picking Clinton (for instance, if she's the VP, does she have the gall to run against a sitting president four years from now?), but want to get out the female vote, they might take a high profile female politician unconnected with the Clintons: Feinstein? Boxer? Pelosi?</p><p>Wild Card: Al Gore.</p>cjmsFri, 06 Jun 2008 03:05:41 -0000http://blog.amandacongdon.com/post/35872632#comment-523128<p>Question is, is it still profitable for News Corp.? Frankly, I'm sure they couldn't care less about whether the users are happy or not. </p>cjmsSat, 24 May 2008 02:56:27 -0000http://blog.amandacongdon.com/post/35403045#comment-500648<p>Oh, 3rd St., how do you offer something new every day?</p>cjmsTue, 20 May 2008 22:24:06 -0000http://blog.amandacongdon.com/post/34964995#comment-482005<p>Question: but does this change the Supreme Court's reluctance to use intermediate scrutiny with the sexual orientation classification? Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter pro, Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia con. </p>cjmsSat, 17 May 2008 00:24:54 -0000http://blog.amandacongdon.com/post/34705595#comment-466529<p>Good friend John Edwards backs Obama. Thoughts?</p>cjmsWed, 14 May 2008 19:49:45 -0000