I don't see anything wrong with this.
The agreement is conditional on Obama and McCain being the nominees. If that's how it turns out, then they'll both have to play by those rules or break the agreement.
Run, Joe, run.
And indeed he will run, and nobody will notice. Not even people from Delaware. Then, sometime in early February 2008, after all his Joementum is played out, he'll withdraw from the race. And it will only be covered here and on dailykos.
When Dems reclaim the House [knocking wood], I want Pelosi to have her shot. After being The Demon San Francisco Liberal for the last several weeks, she deserves an opportunity to show that evil, Frisco, pinko, pervert-lovers care more about average Americans than do rural Pharma Republicans.
You have a good point IF the new leadership elections were to go smoothly. I have a feeling that if Hastert stepped down, all hell would break loose.
Boehner is somewhat tainted by this Foley thing too. Blunt's certain to point that out. Blunt's too cozy with the DeLay crowd. That's sure to be noted. I bet a dozen candidates would try to claim the throne.
So it's my suspicion that a leadership vacuum right now would result in such finger pointing that they'd do the Democrats job for them, right up to election day. And they'd be so busy tearing each other apart, they'd forget about everything else (like GOTV).
Chicago Alderman Tom Tunney could beat Emanuel in a primary.
Tom, as the owner of Ann Sather restaurants, is a respected businessman. He's gay and has the undying loyalty of that community. And he has a long history of opening his facilities to meetings of various community groups.
He's a good, honest guy who is respected by both progressives and traditional party players.
She's better than opponents Woody Jenkins or Suzanne Haik Terrell and what other senator has threatened Bush with physical violence ("I might likely have to punch him - literally")?
I'm sure Mary Landrieu has had to deal with the consequences of Katrina every single day and she doesn't deserve to be treated badly by the blogosphere.
Very weird commercial. A full six seconds before anything happens. Lieberman must be made of money.
I find it interesting that he keeps talking about his years and years in the Senate. Does he not realize that people are really pissed off at Washington right now? Does he think anti-incumbency doesn't apply to him because he's such a nice guy?
On this issue, he made a mistake, somewhat acknowledged it, but then tried to appear that he's the sensible one on this. He's not, but he has a good point.
I also don't see the sense in attacking the handful of "conservative" Democrats that are supporting Lieberman. Compare it to the Chafee-Laffey race. If Laffey were to win and Chafee were to run as an independent, would it be a surprise to see people like Snowe, Collins and Specter supporting Chafee's independent bid? Would it be wrong for them to do so?
I think we should be happy about how quickly so many Democrats rallied around Ned. The DSCC's statement of support was in the 7 a.m. news the next day. Considering the close bond between Schumer and Lieberman, I thought that was good sportsmanship on Schumer's part.
Besides, Pryor, Landrieu, Salazar and the others mean jackshit in Connecticut. The netroots monitoring of the defectors is petty.
We need to keep the focus on November and the opportunity to replace Lieberman with Lamont. For starters, I think we need to find ways in which Schlesinger is a better Republican than Joe and publicize it to Connecticut Republicans. Then, to appeal to old school Dems, we need to get Bill Clinton back to Connecticut, supporting Ned this time. And Obama and Boxer too. For them, it should be penance.
I don't buy that line of logic at all. The continued support of Lieberman by Carper, Salazar and Pryor is, at least, ideologically consistent.
Flip this and consider a Laffey victory over Chafee in Rhode Island. If Chafee mounted an independent bid and won the support of Snowe, Specter and Collins, would that be surprising? Would that be wrong?
In my opinion, Barbara Boxer's sin was much worse. Her contortions in defending Joe show that she has few scruples and is more dedicated to preserving the club than changing the way things work.