are they kidding?
actually, i don't want this to be gender-biased, since we can point out that niki's first move, upon the whole country figuring out that the electorate won't stand for big government spending on anything right now, even if it's healthcare, is to propose going back to the biggest-spending option of them all and starting the debate all over again. (is she, as we used to say back in the neighborhood, retahhhdid?)
i like the fact that timmy "the opportunist" cahill is still on his independent high-horse. his record of profligate government spending is no less impressive than deval's or charlie b's. (from whom lt. governor tim murray happily pointed out getting lectured on fiscal responsibility is a lot like getting lectured on abstinence from paris hilton", to provide one of the best early sound bytes of the election).
but why do folks think that whining and ranting and stamping ones blogological feet about how bad the other guys are does anything to mask the truth about their candidate being at least as bad???
some of us here without party affiliation would sincerely like to find one candidate who isn't a two-faced sack of lying partisan political BS. (and, no, replying to me that your guy is better than the opposite one, or that your guy's stuff don't stink, doesn't count for squat).
what we have here is a political process that spends without restraint on programs without representative sense. tell me who's going to change THAT? (and, no, telling me that YOUR guy will, because he's not like the other two, won't work, either--they all have track records, and it's all pretty obvious and scary stuff).