Your favorite candidate sucks.
My favorite candidate is the best.
I hope this argument has convinced you to overcome your personal deficiencies and start supporting my favorite candidate.
In conclusion, once again, your favorite candidate sucks.
Thank you.
You forgot the "You suck too!" part.
That seems to be an indispensible part of the arguments of a certain candidate's supporters.
Posted by: myiq2xu | February 07, 2008 at 09:53 PM
No, no, you have it all wrong, because your reference to my personal deficiencies is far too bland. My failure to agree with you in fact proves me to be consumed with the purest essence of evil combined with such profound intellectual deficiencies that my managing to post this comment is the improbable event of the century.
Posted by: Warren Terra | February 07, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Brilliant!
Posted by: LauraJMixon | February 07, 2008 at 10:44 PM
But your candidate will get destroyed by the GOP, it'll be all your fault, and History will show my candidate to have been the right one. And your candidate will look like a comma, or something.
Posted by: va | February 07, 2008 at 11:10 PM
You don't support my candidate. You are complicit in handing the White House to the Republicans, and therefore the destruction of all life on earth.
I hope you're happy with yourself.
Posted by: MikeJ | February 07, 2008 at 11:20 PM
How do you know my candidate sucks when you don't know who my candidate is?
Hunh? Hunh?
Posted by: flory | February 08, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Yes, I have known for a long time that my candidate sucks. I wasn't thinking when I signed the pledge card.
Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | February 08, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Your innate desire to turn support of my candidate a sign of my personal deficiencies is a sign of your own personal deficiencies. Therefore, your candidate sucks, and you suck what's left after your candidate has finished sucking it.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | February 08, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Your candidate is just like Carter, mine is just like FDR.
Posted by: calling all toasters | February 08, 2008 at 12:14 AM
we gonna split hairs here? they ALL suck.
Posted by: ran | February 08, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Some good riffing in the comments, but hard to beat the post itself.
Posted by: Batocchio | February 08, 2008 at 03:06 AM
Well, I used to support your candidate; I was behind that choice through thick and thin. Then I realized how much our candidate sucked because of the sucky support for that one sucky bill and the sucky refusal to support the much better bill introduced by the other candidate.
That's why I switched, because, sir, your candidate is the one who really sucks.
Posted by: The Critic | February 08, 2008 at 06:46 AM
Look, it's important that we get out there how much your candidate sucks now.
Because if, through the colossal delusions, of misguided - though well intentioned - enablers of your sucky candidate succeed, the GOP will be able to say your candidate sucks even louder than I do.
And that sucks.
Posted by: Attaturk | February 08, 2008 at 07:49 AM
The tonality of your candidate has changed to one of implicit hatred of all things good - clearly advocating the same things as Bush.
I mean when your candidate said that, it was code language that all people like me are vile scum.
Which is wrong, because - and don't take this personally - it is actually people like you that are vile scum, you and the candidate of your choice - which might as well be Hitler.
Again, nothing personal against you, and other vile scum. I'm just calling it as I see it -- and, of course, only I see it correctly.
Posted by: Attaturk | February 08, 2008 at 07:52 AM
They all suck. The only solution is a crypto-anarchist syndicate with colorful pamphlets and nuclear weapons. And sexbots.
Posted by: shawk | February 08, 2008 at 09:13 AM
In thirty-eight words you summed up six months of the entire political blogosphere.
...boy, that would have saved me a lot of time six months ago.
Posted by: Robin G. | February 08, 2008 at 09:22 AM
If you don't agree with me that your candidate sucks, you are obviously a stupid, stupid troll!
If my candidate wins the nomination, it is your duty to vote for my candidate in November.
If my candidate doesn't win the nomination, I won't vote for your candidate because they suck worse than the other party's candidate!
Posted by: myiq2xu | February 08, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Your candidate may suck, sir, but mine is actually willing to swallow.
Posted by: Nan | February 08, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Your candidate is clearly in the pocket of Big Widgets, the Illuminati, and the Chinese Red and Green Gang.
Mine would never sell us out to Big Widgets.
Posted by: chiggins | February 08, 2008 at 10:45 AM
You want me to vote for who?
My candidate will give me a day off and 50 bucks to vote, what's your offer?
Posted by: Philbert | February 08, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Dammit! You've convinced me, but I've already voted! That truly sucks...
Posted by: ellroon | February 08, 2008 at 11:50 AM
the fact that your candidate sucks only proves my point that the candidate and his supporters are fascists, since all fascists suck, like you and your candidate.
thanks for proving my point for me, sucker.
Posted by: mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | February 08, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Your failure to support my candidate is evidence that you are riven with prejudices that are so deeply buried that you don't even know that you have them. It makes me sad for you. I thought you were my friend.
Posted by: TRex | February 08, 2008 at 12:56 PM
My candidate is your candidate...or was, until you convinced me that my/your candidate sucks. Now I have to vote for someone else.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | February 08, 2008 at 01:28 PM
You have forced me into an official response for my favorite candidate.
Posted by: David (Austin Tx) | February 08, 2008 at 01:40 PM
Only my candidate has affirmed the crucial importance of defending the 3rd Amendment. Has yours? No, yours has not. Yours has been silent on protecting the 3rd Amendment. Get ready to quarter you some soldiers during peacetime, and like it!
And the Zinc Standard? You bet your sweet ass, you sweet-ass bettor, you.
Posted by: chiggins | February 08, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Your candidate is only qualified to be a junior senator from Suckville, as demonstrated by the fact that my candidate raised 70 billion quatloos in four seconds, and yours raised only 80 billion shekels in ten seconds.
QE fucking D.
Posted by: Molly Ivors | February 08, 2008 at 03:03 PM
All of you sheep think your candidates are better than each others'. I, however, am a free thinker. I think outside the box. You can't pigeon-hole me into one of your bourgeois "labels."
Really, I scoff at your petty squabbling about the candidates, when they're all just identical anyway, but you are too brainwashed and stupid to realize it.
NADER, BITCHES. NADER.
Posted by: Nim, ham hock of liberty | February 08, 2008 at 03:10 PM
the fact that my candidate raised 70 billion quatloos in four seconds, and yours raised only 80 billion shekels in ten seconds.
QE fucking D.
Have you seen what's been happening to the shekel/quatloo exchange rate?
It sucks.
Posted by: flory | February 08, 2008 at 04:40 PM
As Chris Matthews would say:
HA!
Posted by: Kim | February 08, 2008 at 05:48 PM
Of course my candidate sucks. Yours blows. Which is why, when my candidate wins, the shared post-election kitchen floor will be cleansed of particulate matter.
Posted by: Li'l Innocent | February 08, 2008 at 06:43 PM
All things considered, at least I know that my candidate is an experienced sucker. My candidate knows all the right ways to suck and still keep the country afloat. Your candidate, if you will excuse my bawdy language, is only a suckling, who will suck the country into irreconcilable disaster - morally, politically and religiously! Who knows the magnitude of sucking we will have to endure for the next 8 years.
Posted by: Nathan | February 08, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Is there something wrong with sucking?
Posted by: Veritas78 | February 08, 2008 at 07:38 PM
Suck on this, bitchez!
How many licks does it take to get to the meaty center of your sucky candidate?
Posted by: HumboldtBlue | February 08, 2008 at 08:35 PM
Say, what happened to the Jonah review?
Posted by: dms | February 09, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Hey, you're BOTH right - your candidate's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!
Posted by: dave™© | February 09, 2008 at 04:35 AM
Well, the expanded version went down like the Hindenberg at FDL.
Which proves they suck. Though not as much as their preferred candidates.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | February 10, 2008 at 02:26 AM
I think my use of the 'your candidate sucks' argument is finally beginning to work. I'm going to stick with it.
Posted by: NealB | February 10, 2008 at 03:22 PM