John Hood: Prescient or Pompous

I'm not sure which, but I know from the first sentence he wrote in this op-ed in today's Charlotte Observer that he isn't being honest with his readers.

I want to believe in the John Edwards campaign.

Bull. Complete and utter bull.

There is no way that a right-wing ideologue like John Hood could possibly believe in the Edwards campaign. No freaking way.

You see, back in 2003, John Hood wrote a piece for National Review Online encouraging all the other Democrats to take Edwards seriously as they competed for the Democratic nomination for president. The only problem is, John Hood kept referring to John Edwards as, "Johnny". Right. Hood tells others to take Edwards seriously while he ridicules the man.

In his op-ed today, Hood says Edwards' early success in 2004 makes him look prescient. Hate to tell you, Hood, but that's not hard when you play both sides of the fence. Had Edwards not been successful, you could have simply claimed you'd just been kidding...what with your flippant tone and all making it oh-so-obvious you were just joshing.

What a horses patoot.

A few paragraphs down in today's op-ed I found the next evidence that Hood is trying to hoodwink his readers.

Unfortunately, the John Edwards of today is a full-throated leftist, bashing Hillary Clinton as too conservative and irresponsibly calling for immediate withdrawal from a war we are in the midst of winning.

Hahahahahahaha. We're winning the war. Did you get that? We're winning. Bahahahahahaha. That's the funniest damned thing I've read in a while. This John Hood is one great little comedian.

Of course, he doesn't give any evidence that we're winning. And since we're in the midst of winning it, I guess we just need to give it another 5-10 years just to see, right? After all, I'm sure tens of thousands of Americans are willing to line up to die so we can stretch this war out long enough to prove John Hood is prescient on this issue as well

I don't usually read John Hood. I leave that up to Anglico. Dayum, this guy is hee-freakin'-larious. I didn't know what I was missing. I'll have to read Hood more often. I like laughing atwith him.

Comments

Disclaimer

I think he's pompous. :)

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Pomp! Pomp! " Exxon" Hood the new Carolina Panthers Cheerleader

I want to believe in the John Edwards campaign.* "Exxon" John Hood

yeah! sure! right! whatever!

The only thing that pompous " Exxon" Hood believes in is whether Art Pope's next paid check will have a raise in it for him saying Jesus okay it.

A war we're winning?

Oh, right. I suppose that's why Senator Lindsey Graham said this five times during an interview on NPR today:

This is a war without end.

Maybe Stagemanager Hood is smarter than Linsdey Graham, but somehow I doubt it. There is no "winning" this war we're in. There is only Korea, The Sequel.

I can't believe the Charlotte Observer prints columns from this smarmy little chickenhawk.

Not that I'm in the practice of defending the CharO

...but they also ran a "Yes, Edwards can win" op-ed as well. I just wished they'd chosen someone who tries to be a little more honest with his readers than John Hood.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Honest Hood

Now there's an oxymoron.

Love Hate

On the Op-ed page I LOVE that style. In a news article I hate that style.

I just wish more newspapers would realize there is a difference between and editorial and a news column

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Nobody should take ‘the hood’ serious.

I saw him on that show; I think it was ‘Inside NC Politics’ or something like that (he often was a guest on the panel, but I think its been canceled for some time). Anyway, he argued on the show that the 3/5’s compromise was a good progression.