New Hampshire Primary Running Thread

Coincidence that his Joe-mentum picked up at around the time Leiberman endorsed him? I say maybe.

But I'd likely vote for them, as long as Leiberman had no say in domestic policy.

 

Karl.Rove.Pantsuit.

 

Posted just for shits and giggles:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/clintons-strategy-echoes-bush-in-2000/index.html?ex=1357621200&en=5d77669189759095&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

Obama's "turning the page" speeches aren't meaningless. Regrettably, Obama consistently misses on the issues of healthcare, social security, foreign policy, and on what real change means.

 

One of the great SportsJournalists.com moments happened a half-hour ago:

Stephen A. Smith on Hardball.
A world gone mad.

 

crap! Missed it. Any details?

 

The idea that Obama has no positions on any of these issues and that Hillary just keeps serving up the steak is hilariously false. But even if it were true, ask Gore how well articulating your stance on various positions in a wonkish manner worked out. Hillary's stances on the issues are whatever the polling tells her they should be. I have no doubt she'll work hard, that she will be able to figure out the system. I'd think she's even be a good president. I just don't think for a second she believes in a god damn thing. Hearing her tap-dance around the abortion issue and throw a bone to the right earlier this year proved that. She does not believe in anything other than "How the fuck do I get elected?" The fact that Bill told Kerry he should throw gay people under the bus in '04 and come out against gay marriage told me all I need to know about how the Clinton machine works. Never in my lifetime did I think I'd see a Democrat pissing on optimism and trying to supress voter turnout among young people.

Hillary Clinton has no more credibility and no more of a foreign policy position than Obama does. In fact, I'd argue he at least has some semblance of a position on the subject -- I'll talk with anyone -- where as she's busy mumbling about what she would have done had she bothered to read the Intel six years ago, or bothered to check her spine. Seriously, in the bluest of the fucking blue states, she didn't have the courage to question Bush on an invasion that had no plan, no exit strategy, and no evidence? What a courageous position of experience that was.

 

Are you an Obamaniac, DD? If so, welcome to the club. We have jackets.

 

Say Doc, two types Southerners (by and large) don't like: Highfalooters and Bible Thumpers. You don't have to be stopped on your way to Sunday school by proselytizers from Bob Jones University but once to form an objection.

Sure, the South has more of 'em percentagewise, but that's one reason the rest of the folks are so leery of 'em. They're far from a majority. There's a difference between identifying yourself as a Christian on a poll and going out and shoving it under your neighbor's nose.

 

And Lieberman brings exactly what to the ticket?
He has no support within the Democratic party any more -- he didn't have much of one in 2004 -- no Republican who's thinking of sitting out a McCain election is going to change their mind because Joe's on the ticket, and most of whatever Indies he could bring in McCain will bring in anyway. He has a constituency of one. Anybody McCain picks is going to have to be young.
Basically, POO, it was a thing about the Vegas oddsmakers on the candidates, which brings SAS in as a sports guy. He was on with Shuster, Craig Crawford, and Tucker (in his new big-boy tie). And he was far from being the biggest foof on the panel.

 

Then why have they had so much of a say in setting the GOP's social agenda for the last seven years?

That's an honest question.

 

That's what happens when the party has no clear goal or message.