Great catch, eriposte!
This ones going up in orange soon!:)
P.S.
I have found the information you provided about Lieberman and Obama especially useful in debates at DK. Hillary's "horrible" support for Lieberman is given as a major reason not to vote for her.
P.S. Geekesque sends his regards. He laments that you don't have the "stones" to debate with him over at DK. Unfortunately, his calendar is totally full land he no longer has time to comment here at TLC.
Obama is always throwing his staff under the bus. He did this again just recently with the questionnaire that showed him to be very, very liberal on many issues that could harm him. A staffer did this, according to Obama, but of course he didn't authorize it. Poor Obama, people are always putting words into his mouth.
I hope he gets vetted over the next two weeks - it's about time. When they find out he is nothing but fluff, voters may have to reconsider who to vote for on January 3rd.
Excellent post, which reinforces the similarities between the Democrats and the Republicans. All the more reason for a third party candidate to run in this country in order to provide a much more viable alternative to the average voter than the two current plutocratic parties that are running this country.
Posted by Erroll at December 16, 2007 11:53 AMYes, eriposte, we know you like Hilary Clinton.
Posted by Luce Imaginary at December 16, 2007 10:15 PMI.e., there's a difference between making a speech against the war and horse-trading in Congress. We all saw Hagel denounce the surge in a floor speech. But then this:
"Republicans don't want to be seen as filibustering the anti-surge resolution, but they hope having Warner and Hagel in their pocket on all this procedural arcana might deflect matters. Most of them would like this all to go away."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/road_map_to_a_f.html
Obama's speech against the war doesn't tell us how he would have voted in the Senate.