if it is someone famous (Hillary etc.) it will be during the convention, if it's someone recognised, but not universally known, it will be today or early tomorrow. Gives the news orgs time to research and write up for Sunday.
If it's totally from left field, I haven't a clue.
Yeah, but I'd much rather Obama got the media and his surrogates to do this for him (however difficult that might be). McCain has nicely demonstrated how slippery the slope is once you start negative attack ads.
You sound deluded - Obama is not going to be listening to your advice, Republicans don't give a shit about what you or I say.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to reject and denounce Larry and Su, as you insist Barack does with everybody you conceive to be questionable. And there is a difference - I don't find Rev. Wright or Ayers the "terrorist" to be despicable human beings.
"But the amendment did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."
Obama did not actually vote on the amendment - he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:
Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."
a rather obnoxious ass, you might want to provide some links to all your assertions.
Oh, and another sure fire way to gain some credibility - stop posting at NQ. You will never find a greater hive of scum and villainy. Cept maybe Hillis44.org.. but even you wouldn't post there, would you?
It would be useful to have people on his VP search team that actually supported him. If you put a Republican expert on there then they're just gonna offer you Kucinich, you put a bunch of Clinton supporters on they'll just say "Hillary is the best choice". You want some people who are going to look at the best options for Obama. People who supported him are going to do that.