This Just In: New Hampshire Trailspotter Kathy on last night's Obama rally and Clinton's crowd-building robocalls to Boston!
Watching Republican presidential contenders wrestle with Obama-mania is almost as remarkable as observing the commotion on the other side, where Illinois senator Barack Obama is turning the Democratic race upside down.
Things are just as topsy-turvy in the GOP field. Like much of the political world, Republican hopefuls had assumed that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. President George W. Bush and his political guru, Karl Rove, even went on the record with that prediction.
But in Republican debates over the weekend, Obama replaced Clinton as the preferred punching bag and presumed foe. GOP candidates are now competing to impress party voters with how effectively they could paint Obama as a naïve liberal unworthy of mainstream support.
“Senator Obama has adopted the position of every liberal interest group in this country, as best I can tell,” former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said during the GOP debate on Jan. 5 in New Hampshire. “He's talking in generalities right now. As time goes on, I think he'll have to be more definitive.”
The Obama effect on Republicans is profound:
- Rudy Giuliani is floundering without Clinton as the bogey woman he once used so effectively for igniting party audiences, but the former New York mayor is making the transition to targeting Obama. "He's embraced change, but change is a concept. He really doesn't have the experience, either from the national security point of view or even from just the executive point of view."
- Mike Huckabee cites many ideological and policy differences with Obama, but is unique among his party rivals in also offering praise. The former Arkansas governor says Obama is "a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote."
- Arizona Sen. John McCain bragged on Sunday that he could easily beat the newcomer.
- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – who has in the past mixed up Obama’s name with Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden -- is stepping up his own rhetoric of change, echoing the potential Democratic nominee’s tirades against Washington insiders.
Craig on C-SPAN Monday (1/7) 8-9 PM EST
MSNBC Tuesday (1/8) 11:30 PM EST




Comments
another e-mail I got today about a posting on craigslist.......I bet it's bogus also.....
Barack O'bama. Are we ready for an Irish President?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: comm-530787102@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-01-06, 9:28PM MST
With their leprechauns, and their drunkenness, I just can't get my head around the idea that we need an Irishman in the White House.
Join me and other Republicans in our effort to defeat O'Bama!
Posted by: sturgeone | January 7, 2008 6:20 AM
Wow
people must really hate Hillary Clinton
I think Spike's post on why the campaign is not
successful is probably closer to the trutth then the
crap at the pro Obama Huffpo
Also in the posts about the first Obama rally in NH
there were stories about people from out of NH
and in bownmanc's story about the Clinton rally
not so much. I think the obama people are using the
media hatred of Clinton to spread rumors/
a good example is the story from Iowa that Richardson ordered to delegates to Obama. A lie.
Obama reminds of a lot the greens who have run for office.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 6:43 AM
the appearance of the politics of hope
a vaneer pasted over Chicago ward politics
this is Obama and his campaign from 2004
Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was long planned.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 6:52 AM
KGC-
The crowd in Keene last night was overwhelmingly local and overwhelmingly New Hampshire- that observation is based upon license plates-
By the way local radio reported that the crowd was 1,700- to give you an idea, I think our population (we are the county seat and largest city going an hour in every direction) is about 26,000.
That is a huge turnout-
As I posted before, Hillary has not really come around here though we are an overwhelmingly democratic area. She has appeared here 2 times open to the public- the first was in 2/07- big turnout- I think about 1,300. She took questions and made favorable impressions even on people who were doubters. This was the start of the "conversation"
Then last July with Bill in tow. No questions taken. Many thought it was great and esp.due to Bill.
She never did another public event herein our county.
In December she did blow into a local restaurant, but it was a closed public event, open to the media. It was the Mothers and Daughter tour - there could not have been more than 40-50 in attendance. Many did not even know about it until that day.
I would have loved to go to that event. I know of a ton of dynamic curious women who will vote who would have gone. Last night at Obama I spoke with several local activist dems- people really involved in the process- who have been overlooked by the Clinton camp.
Of course, you can say that anyone can find a local office, go online, etc., to get involved, but in comparison to the other candidates the difference was noticeable.
Posted by: Kathy | January 7, 2008 7:35 AM
Kathy
be sure to read bowmanc's post on the Clinton event
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 7:38 AM
KGC-
I did read it -
I am really interested in campaign strategy successes and mistakes. I think she is a much better candidate than her campaign allowed her to be. They made an error to not allow her to answer questions.
And to overlook totally the most democratic corner of NH (and its activists) makes no sense.
Posted by: Kathy | January 7, 2008 7:43 AM
It's my understanding she is taking questions
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 7:47 AM
If you haven't seen it, be sure to see Spike's analysis of the Clinton campaign failures in Iowa. I think Zoey also had some remarks on the staffing issues.
I agree they have made some big mistakes. And it may cost her the nomination.
Obama makes me nervous because all of the people who I like an respect politically and have worked with over the years in California don't trust him. Also his state chairman in Cal is Steve Westly who is barely a democrat.
When he sits down to reach out to Republicans I think the issues to me will be at the bottom of the list.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 7:50 AM
Yes, Hillary did take questions, for about an hour.
I should note that there were people from out of state at all three of the events (Obama, McCain & Hillary)I went to over the weekend.
New Hampshire has the reputation for the candidates being accessable to the public, so people come to see them close up. Once the campaigns roll out of New Hampshire to the big states and big contests the entire dynamic of the contest changes.
Posted by: Bowmanc
| January 7, 2008 8:01 AM
oh and screw Sam Nunn and all the losers in Norman Ok today.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 8:07 AM
I know she is taking questions now- but until this last round in the past week or two, I do not know of many who felt that they could address her and interact. It appeared that she was very well surrounded by people- and again- I say this as a campaign mistake and not of Hillary herself- it appeared to me that there was an "exclusive" group that surrounded her. It was hard from people to see her and interact- and this is often that is based upon the process of repetition and seeing people more than once.
She has has surrogates, but only though personal invitation - today the Emily's list founder is in town.
Posted by: Kathy | January 7, 2008 8:08 AM
When will the MSM start giving Obama the same scrutiny as they are giving HC?
Posted by: FryDaddy
| January 7, 2008 8:11 AM
today the Emily's list founder is in town.
Ellen Malcolm hmmmm
Aren't they supposed to be in charge of getting Clinton's women's support. Not doing a very good job are they.?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 8:16 AM
When will the MSM start giving Obama the same scrutiny as they are giving HC?
about the same time they look into the record of the Huckster and well any of the other goopers
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 8:17 AM
KC lets stay with the Ds. The MSM have already demonstrated their bias take on the Rs.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| January 7, 2008 8:24 AM
I think we should discuss the goopers
nice choices Fry
and how about that Iowa caucus
hardly any goopers showed up -- they don't want to be republicans anymore
new republican slogan --Get off my Lawn
and I guess immigration isn't going to be the organizing tool you hoped for.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 8:28 AM
Here is an article covering Steve Westley's failed gubernatorial campaign in California. If this guy is backing Obama, it is definitely another reason to get off the band wagon. When KGC says he is barely a Democrat, she's not only right, she's understating the some of his snakier activities.
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/billbradley/2006/03/03/steve_westly_in_the_valley.php
Posted by: Jamie | January 7, 2008 8:30 AM
mornin' all.
sturg - I wasn't aware craigslist was a political site. I thought it related to more carnal endeavors.
Here's a link to an aggregation of the latest NH polls. Things look good for Obama there - it will be interesting to see whther the results shadow the polls and if so, whether the results sway her support nationwide. Same can be said for McCain on the Rep side - but they both have huge deficits to overcome if they think they will do well on SDT.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
BowmanC and Kathy, terrific coverage of the race there. PLEASE keep up the good work. btw, do you have any sense of how many college aged kids were in the audiences at the events you went to?
Posted by: pogo
| January 7, 2008 8:50 AM
Sacramento Bee article on early voting in California
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/614216.html
Posted by: Jamie | January 7, 2008 8:57 AM
Dex, I also had a wtf moment when I saw Kristol as an op/ed columnist at the Times. I guess Brooks has become too much of a wussy to be the token conservative voice of the Times editorial page.
Posted by: pogo
| January 7, 2008 9:07 AM
From the Huffinton Post columnist, Fauntroy, on the Media hot air about Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-fauntroy-phd/lets-not-overreact-to-ob_b_79937.html
Posted by: Jamie | January 7, 2008 9:14 AM
msgop and Mr and Mrs Scarborough are spending the morning trashing Clinton
all you need to know about Mike Barnicle and Tweety
they were for Gene McCarthy until they had to be for Bobby.
I thought they wanted to turn the page...they want to go back to the sixities
and that woman from NH..Jennifer Donahue
yuck
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 9:18 AM
Reardon article on Mars vs. Venus. It's an excellent piece on the media slant. The comment from the Edward's supporter is well worth reading.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/more-than-just-mars-and-_b_80076.html#postComment
Posted by: Jamie | January 7, 2008 9:23 AM
Kathy....
thanks for all the reporting you're doing here..... you too are doing a superb job.....
nice to read all the back and forth with Craig and listers from last night's Repub debate..... no..... I didn't watch it..... I watched 60 minutes to see the Roger Clemens interview.... and I am addicted to The Amazing Race....
Patsi.... us older folks have plenty of outlets to make our opinions known.... with the exception of brief appearances by 9/11's daughter VanillaBirdies and a fella in his 20's, Rob... and of course our resident elder, tiptoe, who's fast approaching 105..... this blog is full of baby boomers (myself included)....
I would love to see a broader spectrum here regarding age......
we are ALL in this together.... and the younger generation needs to get politically involved, IMO....
the horse race is getting very interesting....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | January 7, 2008 9:25 AM
When will Edwards thank the mills for making the profits they did back then his parents/grandparents worked there that afforded him the opportunity to go to college. Those mills that his parents/grandparents work in are all closed due to foreign competition and their inability to make any profits. Had Edwards been born 10 to 15 years later there would be no college, no law school, no 20,000 sq. ft home, no hedge fund job, no $400 haircuts. You are where you are today because your parents/grandparents work for a company that made profits. Edwards is such a hypocrite.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| January 7, 2008 9:38 AM
kc, I caught bits of Joe & Mika this morning while I was getting Little Pogo ready for school and out the door. If you listen to them, the races are over - it will be Obama v. Huckleberry in November. Yeah, they both have the Big Mo, and I could be wrong, but there seems to be a long way to go before the primary fights are over.
Posted by: pogo
| January 7, 2008 9:42 AM
Berkeley preacher calls for blacks to fight abortion
Leslie Fulbright, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, January 7, 2008
Printable VersionEmail This Article del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Reddit Slashdot
Fark
Newsvine
Google Bookmarks
(49) Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial
Saying they are faced with a civil rights crisis that demands immediate attention, African American anti-abortion advocates will hold three events in the Bay Area later this month in an aggressive push to combat the high number of abortions among black women.
"The abortion issue is huge. It is the Darfur of America," and it's time to educate the public about it, said Walter Hoye, a Berkeley preacher who founded the Issues4Life Foundation, a recently formed Union City-based organization intent on drafting more African Americans into the fight against abortion
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/07/BAC5U8985.DTL&tsp=1
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 9:52 AM
Bryan, great catch on irregardless. It's either regardless or irrespective - but I'm betting Huckleberry has no idea.
Posted by: pogo
| January 7, 2008 10:01 AM
Fry hates Edwards because they come from the same
place and Edwards is more successful.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 10:05 AM
kc, that may be, and Rush keeps bashing Edwards because he thinks saying Breck Girl is too cute by a half, so his minions are, too. The repugs should really try and find better filters than Rush and Hannity to trot out their talking points.
Posted by: pogo
| January 7, 2008 10:12 AM
Rush =big fat tub of lard
and he is making fun of Edwards appearance????
Three failed marriages, sex and drug trips to the DR
and a racist -- who listens to him?
Mushareff: even if he thinks it's true, he should not say it was her own fault for standing up in the car.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 10:21 AM
I think one of the reasons left wing Democrats are suspicious of Obama is his appeal to right center indepdents.
How can you decide between Obama and McCain?
WTF
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 10:39 AM
Well, hate to do it, but have to hit the road for ATL. Dinner with the nephew (the first Little Pogo) and a few beers while watching the Nat'l. Champ game tonight. Everyone have a good time traking the NH primary results tomorrow - I'll be flying and driving all evening and won't get to check in to what's happening with it until the fat lady has already sung.
Posted by: pogo
| January 7, 2008 10:41 AM
Take away the tax and abortion issues you would have hard time telling the difference between Huckabee and Obama.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| January 7, 2008 10:45 AM
"I think one of the reasons left wing Democrats are suspicious of Obama is his appeal to right center indepdents."
Curious. Obama's voting record is pretty far to the left. Other than Iraq.
Posted by: dnd | January 7, 2008 10:47 AM
Craig,
If no one has used it yet, I want to coin a phrase:
Obama Phenoma: It will take a few months for the definition to unfold, but in the future, we'll know it when we see it.
Posted by: EdVB
| January 7, 2008 10:48 AM
"Curious. Obama's voting record is pretty far to the left. Other than Iraq" dnd
Exactly so how can you choose between Obama and McCain?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 10:52 AM
"In the greatest change election in my lifetime, running on experience is like opening a liquor store in Mecca."
-- Clinton supporter Paul Begala on Stephanie Miller
Posted by: dnd | January 7, 2008 10:52 AM
This is what bugs me. You see WHY they're all against Obama: he's too inexperienced and he's too liberal. These are specifications. What did they have on Hillary? Nothing. It was simply: I can run best against Hillary...c'mon!
Posted by: Thomas | January 7, 2008 10:53 AM
Take away the tax and abortion issues you would have hard time telling the difference between Huckabee and Obama.
Posted by: FryDaddy | January 7, 2008 10:45 AM
I guess that means you will be staying home this November
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 10:59 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/06/see-the-latest-nh-polls-_n_79985.html
I don't see the Edwards surge
please show me that
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 11:17 AM
"Obama is his appeal to right center indepdents."
This is so weird. He is farther left than Hillary. Are they selling a bill of goods to the independents?
It's almost as if they want Obama because the Republicans have a better argument against a far left candidate than they do against someone walking the middle. Scarborough's pushing of the Obama's enthusiasm while slamming Hillary makes this a likelihood.
Posted by: Jamie | January 7, 2008 11:23 AM
There are still plenty of New Hampshire independents who are choosing between Obama and McCain, his Republican colleague in the Senate.
They are acknowledging as much in questions at the crowded town hall meetings where they say, as Bob Jean, an accountant, did at a McCain event in Salem: "A lot of independents are trying to decide between Obama and you, or Hillary Clinton and you."
what are these people going to do if Obama is elected
AMcCain supporter who voted for Obama is going to be quite shocked at President Obama (or the left part of his coalition --the youth will be angry.)
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 11:53 AM
To quote Jackie Gleason: "How sweet it is" to see the old guard of both parties sweat, worry, and being so out of touch with a new age in politics. It is such
fun to watch the Obama victory train gaining steam with a growing number of supporters/ voters as the old guard take their outdated dumb shots at a moving target they can't begin to see or realize. Talk about being clueless - Well thank goodness because it means we will have a really new President and a new begining not only for America but the world. So Old guard keep those shots coming - they reflect and echo your past failures....A few words from Les MIserables:" When the beating of your heart equals the beating of a drum"........Without doubt the old guard - in both parties have a serious hearing problem.........Ken
Posted by: KenWooden | January 7, 2008 12:05 PM
Did he just say.. "take away the tax and abortion issues" ???.. for some people..those ARE the issues.. you cant take them away..
Posted by: tylenol
| January 7, 2008 12:12 PM
I'm not sure I was watching the same events as the MSM was yesterday. I thought Hillary did great.. I do understand the Obama mania.. hell, I think I might have even started it.. but she's doing fine. What has everyone in MSM been smoking? and where can I get some?
Posted by: tylenol
| January 7, 2008 12:15 PM
It would be great if Edwards can pull it off
although the media is not his friend
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 12:16 PM
Susan Rice of the Obama campaign just played the race card big time in an interview with Mrs. Greenspan
the msgobama coverage is really terrible
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 12:17 PM
speaking of not change
MarilynSanAntone January 7th, 2008 at 9:18 am 69
Good point. If the Democratic campaigns weren’t so criticially important, it would be fun to watch the Republican implosion.
But we’re all lost. I just read all the comments on the earlier posting about the atrocities of war and whose responsibility it is (ours; our hands are bloody). And we’re going to continue. Dems are rushing headlong into Obama. Guess who his fp advisor is? Zbig Brezinski - Carter’s disastrous advisor, who manipulated the US into financing the mujadhin’s guerilla win over Russia (not that we’d want Russia to win) but that was the birth of Al Quaida (read all the reviews of Charlie Wilson’s War - where gullible American audiences laugh and cheer but are not let in on the nasty truth). Then read the serious history of that involvement. Juan Cole has a link to Chalmers Johnson’s review…excellent.
Electing Obama may not be change…it may be same old same old.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 12:21 PM
I think that Obama has snookered a lot of people, his message, his fresh face, youthful appearance. They have not seriously looked beyond that, to dig into to his politics, his history in Chicago, his connections to the HMO's & insurance companies, who his advisors are, etc.
He avoided specics in his speech on Saturday. People are cheering for hope & change. But remember hope is like wishes. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Posted by: Bowmanc
| January 7, 2008 12:28 PM
While important to the MSM and politicos, the NH primary is another small dot on the delegate collection map. NH has a grand total of 30 Democratic delegates out of 4,049 who will attend the Convention. So, the pundits will have some more fun (wasn't Iowa fun?) this week but IMO Super Tuesday on February 5th will see the delegate counts spread out all over the board with three potential candidates sloshing their way through until Denver on August 25th. Unless one of the three big candidates can amass more than 2,000 delegates before August, we could see a "brokered" convention once again. Yes, Iowa and NH are interesting contests but not any where major contests, except in the eyes of the media and pundits.
Does anyone know if the NH delegates are bound by the results and for how many rounds of voting at the convention?
Posted by: eprof2 | January 7, 2008 12:32 PM
I don't think i'd classify Obama's appeal as being "snookered." I really do think he's great..and should he be the nominee, he'll be a fantastic president..
Posted by: tylenol
| January 7, 2008 12:36 PM
Pogo,
Back when Edwards' parents were working in the mills, lint heads they call themselves, the mills were seen in the same light as Edwards sees today corporations. The mills were even worse; mill housing, mill store, mill towns, mill banks. The workers existence was controlled by the mills. But as bad as that was the mills and the profits which kept them in business benefited John Edwards. Edwards is mad as hell about Exxon's excess profits, but was he upset when oil was $10 a barrel and the oil companies were struggling? You cut back on these so called excess profits who do you hurt? Well 1 the share holders. Shareholders these day are 401K, IRA, SEP account holders, teacher unions, UAW AFL-CIO workers, self employed persons, retirees. When all is said and done, the profits from a company such as Exxon go back into the company and back to their shareholders in the form of dividends. Companies, i.e. Maytag, move their operation outside the US because of cost. Operating cost, salaries, social security, company heath plan benefits, paid vacations, paid holidays,union demands all eat away at the bottom line, and when you are competing against washer-dryers being made outside the US, ones with a better reliability record, are cheaper to buy, are made by non union workers, often subsidized by their governments, you pretty much crush the US competition. So all this bemoaning to keep US jobs here, make the products here sounds great, but at what cost to the US buyer? What middle class family will go to Target, Wal-Mart, etc. and pay $20 for a US made towel when they can buy one made in China carrying the same brand name for $7 to $11? The US mills can not compete, can not make a profit with manufacturing here, even in NC, which is a right to work state, they lose. Fairfield, Canon all gone, their plants are all standing empty, no products to sell, no taxes to collect, and they will never reopen ever again as textile mills. Look at Ford & GM. They will be lucky if they can stay in business for another 10 years. Simple math tells you you can not sell a 2007 car for just above cost, at cost, or below below cost at 0% interest for 60 month, and expect people to line up and buy your 2008 cars at full fare plus pay interest too. And this doesn't even take into consideration the used cars market glut. Edwards' call of excess profits is just another example of class warfare, it sounds good, lets make the man pay, let hurt the man, make him feel as bad as we feel. Problem with that tactic is the man, the man who has the money and power is the one providing the employment the benefits, the man can moves elsewhere and the workers, town, schools, hospitals are left hurting because the major tax contributor has left town for more favorable treatment. Edwards, he has benefited from a number of things he decries today, from company profits to Bush's tax cuts, and it is really to bad his presidential run will be over in a few week if not before, because I would love to post here everyday all the tax loop holes he has benefited from. What stocks he or his trust hold. What companies he has worked for, and what services these companies provided, who ran these companies. It would be some much fun, but thank god Edwards is on his way out.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| January 7, 2008 12:48 PM
President Obama
I think he will have the same problems governing as President Clinton Independents and Republicans will expect compromise and if he doesn't - they will make his life miserable.
The early Clinton years were filled with lots of imaginative public policy initiatives including the national conversation on race. But all the ended.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | January 7, 2008 12:49 PM
Watching the MSNBC coverage, I keep thinking they are seeing something completely at odds with what I'm seeing.
Scarborough pushing the "I Can't Make Her Younger" quote every other second while waving the Murdoch headlines just to make sure everyone knows Clinton is a has been. Ye Gods!! He's as bad as O'Reilly.
His coverage is more of the crass "older women unlike older men, should just disappear ... bring on the brainless bikini models"
Posted by: Jamie | January 7, 2008 12:50 PM
Tylenol,
Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. If is change that people want, fine. My point is that I do not believe that people really know what form this change he speaks of will take, and if he is elected, how far he will get with this change. Our institutions are designed to buffer the political tides. So maybe another term rather than snookered would be more appropriate. How about a leap of faith? He does, after all, sound like a preacher giving a sermon. That much I do know, because I saw him on Saturday.
Posted by: Bowmanc
| January 7, 2008 12:54 PM
Jamie...
your pledge to no longer watch MSNBC except for KO and when Craig is on didn't last too long...... ;0}
eprof.... I agree completely with you that Feb 5th will tell us much more than either Iowa or NH....
Fry..... I believe that Democrats must be very careful when spewing the usual anti-corporatist rant...... sometimes it's as if they think money comes from thin air.... I have to admit that your post was very well thought out....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | January 7, 2008 1:01 PM
NEW THREAD
Posted by: Jamie | January 7, 2008 1:01 PM
RebelliousRenee,
I Strongly reject your well meant, yet misguided admonition of leniency to "crydaddy". His position defines the mote that lies between the reality that briefly was America and the reality that IS America. Exploitation is not the cornerstone of democracy but a feudal crutch in the fascist evolution that is the corporate world. I.E. Deals with the devil are seldom wholesale bargains, let alone the retail consequences.
Posted by: NAGSDRED
| January 8, 2008 4:44 AM
Post A Comment