July 6, 2004

Plus: US hot dog-eater defeats Kobayashi!


Damn but the New York Post gave me a depressing five minutes between the time I saw this "exclusive" cover story on the newsstand and the time I got to Google News.

On the surface it looks like the biggest front page blooper since the Post called the wrong winner in the 2000 election, and this time I don't think the Supreme Court is going to come to its rescue.

But was it actually a mistake or was it intentional? Knee-jerk conspiracy theories:

1. They were just setting Kerry up to accuse him of flip-flopping. Update: someone else has this idea.
2. They're hoping their readers won't see the story anywhere else (not impossible) and will go to the polls thinking Kerry is running with the intolerable Gephardt -- though in that case, they should've gone with Hillary.
Update: 3. They intentionally created a "collectable" to sell extra copies for people to resell on eBay. (Actually proposed here, albeit stone age reference to something called "a flea market" instead of eBay.)

Posted by Daniel Radosh


Don't forget last year's premature American League pennant call.

Note that the Yankees have not won the World Series since that editorial was published. The Post Curse lives!

I think the Post was indulging in a bit of wishful thinking - what would make those righty-right cranks more gleeful than a Kerry/Gephardt ticket?

I'm not sure that the VP choice really helps or hurts the ticket. I mean, look at Quayle and Bentsen back in '88. Based on those two alone, it seems Dukakis should have won the election. Yet, we got Bush.

Dukakis could have chosen Pure Unfiltered Love as his running mate and Bush 41 would still have won.

Edwards was the right choice.

All this enthusiasm about Edwards, which I share, does smack just a bit of Democrats calling "do-over". I mean, if he's the guy who can rescue Kerry, why didn't we nominate him in the first goddamn place?

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2